Brian Davis

[Kilroy]

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."?

How in all creation is that fair?? Please don't allow golf to be overseen by Hockey refs.

[LobWedge]

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."?

It may have had no effect on his shot in this instance, BUT it could have. That's why the rule is so black and white in these situations. There's no room for grey area. The resulting can of worms would make rounds twice as long, and degenerate in to endless discussions about intent, etc. You cannot speculate about the intent in someone's mind. Prisons are full of people that "didn't mean to do it."

The fact that they're playing for millions of dollars is a by product of the popularity of the game, and has nothing to do with the game itself. Besides, if having millions of dollars at stake is such a big thing to these guys, you'd think they'd be that much more careful in those situations.

[jonf]

How in all creation is that fair?? Please don't allow golf to be overseen by Hockey refs.

It's not as if some supernatural being handed down the rules of golf to a jolly scottish lad atop a highland bluff. Like it or not, there is a human element built into these rules already. The assumption that they are without fault is equally worthy.

Golf already has committees that make decisions, and individuals that make rulings. Is it really so far fetched to give them the power to overrule the rulebook in exceptional circumstances?

Perhaps, as has been suggested, intent should not factor into the equation. But surely there is room for flexibility based on the circumstances surrounding an infraction, and its real impact (or lack thereof) on the game.

[justsomeguy]

Golf already has committees that make decisions, and individuals that make rulings. Is it really so far fetched to give them the power to overrule the rulebook in exceptional circumstances?

Yes, that is very far fetched.

Decisions and rulings in golf are focused on determining the facts - i.e, what happened, what ARE the circumstances. They have little to do with deciding what the outcome should be once the facts are known, because in 99.9% of cases the result is spelled out in the rulebook.

For example, in this case it was determined by the rules official that:
1) the ball was in a hazard
2) his club touched a twig/branch during his backswing, and
3) the twig/branch was not part of a growing bush but was a loose impediment
Based on these facts, it is the rulebook that determines what the result will be - not the rules official.

Perhaps, as has been suggested, intent should not factor into the equation. But surely there is room for flexibility based on the circumstances surrounding an infraction, and its real impact (or lack thereof) on the game.

I would argue that there is no room at all for such flexibility. Most people already bend, break or totally ignore the rules of golf on a regular basis as it is. Why provide even more excuses?

[jonf]

Yes, that is very far fetched.

Decisions and rulings in golf are focused on determining the facts - i.e, what happened, what ARE the circumstances. They have little to do with deciding what the outcome should be once the facts are known, because in 99.9% of cases the result is spelled out in the rulebook.

For example, in this case it was determined by the rules official that:
1) the ball was in a hazard
2) his club touched a twig/branch during his backswing, and
3) the twig/branch was not part of a growing bush but was a loose impediment
Based on these facts, it is the rulebook that determines what the result will be - not the rules official.

Yes, I understand that is how it works. That is the very construct I am questioning. I am, heaven forbid, suggesting that the rule book should NOT be taken as gospel.

I would argue that there is no room at all for such flexibility. Most people already bend, break or totally ignore the rules of golf on a regular basis as it is. Why provide even more excuses?

Should we really be worried about people who ignore the rules anyway? Seems like it wouldn't matter at all what the rules are for those individuals.

[Kilroy]

Should we really be worried about people who ignore the rules anyway? Seems like it wouldn't matter at all what the rules are for those individuals.

With all due respect, how are you different than they are when you advocate aplying the rules selectively based on what you personally deem to be fair?

[gbower]

A quick story I read a while ago which is supposedly true.
A golfer joins another 3 guys and they know him from being a big rules official so they tell him up front that they don't play by all the rules as they'll give putts and roll the ball and a few other things. Well the rules guy hits his tee shot into the fairway bunker and when he gets there just kicks it out into the rough. The other guys all get upset and say that he can't do that as it's against the rules. He turns to them and say that they said they don't play by all the rules and he hates fairway bunker shots so he was going to just move the ball out of the bunker. He then said "if you don't play by all the rules please tell me the ones you do play by".

The rules are there for a reason so get with it Jonf.

[BC MIST]

Decisions and rulings in golf are focused on determining the facts - i.e, what happened, what ARE the circumstances. They have little to do with deciding what the outcome should be once the facts are known, because in 99.9% of cases the result is spelled out in the rulebook.

For example, in this case it was determined by the rules official that:
1) the ball was in a hazard
2) his club touched a twig/branch during his backswing, and
3) the twig/branch was not part of a growing bush but was a loose impediment
Based on these facts, it is the rulebook that determines what the result will be - not the rules official.

This is the most important point that some still don't get. Since most tournament players don't know the rules as well as they should, it is the officials sole responsibility to help apply the rules to the players actions, when needed.

There is a rule that says it is the responsibility of the player to know the rules. If he makes a mistake, it's his problem. However, the presence of an official helps reduce player errors. In our daily games, we are our own rules official and the more we know about the rules, the more valid is our score. If one takes the attitude that the rules are stupid and are applicable only when one feels like applying them, then the golf score is meaningless and the game is just a walk in the park. This is fine for those who just want to be outside and get a little exercise but for the vast majority of us, it's dishonest.

The rules are black and white. There should be no interpretations. But there are convenient misinterpretations, by some.

[jonf]

With all due respect, how are you different than they are when you advocate aplying the rules selectively based on what you personally deem to be fair?

I'm different in that I follow the rules, no matter how stupid I think they are.

I'm just of the opinion that, as flawed as human being can be, sometimes they will do a better job of assessing a situation than a book. There are times when the letter of the law should be overruled.

[Big Johnny69]

I'm different in that I follow the rules, no matter how stupid I think they are.

I'm just of the opinion that, as flawed as human being can be, sometimes they will do a better job of assessing a situation than a book. There are times when the letter of the law should be overruled.

I'm with you Jon, but like I mentioned previously, the rules gurus see this debate, like the rules of golf, as black and white. I don't understand it, but everyone gets so defensive and argumentative when you question the rules of golf. Generally, in society, when you question things, in more cases than not it will lead to evolution and improvements. I'm not sure why these people can't admit that there is a "chance" that opening the rules up to discussion and possible changes couldn't make the game better. Every other sport on the planet has evolved over the years, except golf. They are so worried about messing with the tradition of the game they are affraid to even try to evolve the game. Golf seems to be the only sport where, in some cases, appears to be taking steps backwards.

For instance, in regards to this ruling. How come the player's intent can't be brought into the equation of rendering a decision???

I'll use Davis' situation as an example:

Instead of a twig that was in the path of his backswing, lets say it was a stone. Now if he took he backswing and purposedly pushed the stone back during his backswing (and it's obvious to everyone watching), you assess the penalty. But if it's a thin twig that went unoticed during address and was struck on the backswing, which in no way improved the intended path of play or the outcome, how come the penalty cannot be waived?

We that choose to question these things are not asking to have heaven and earth moved and have the entire rules revamped, just be a little open minded about the possibilty that there could be other ways at looking at things. The thing that is frustrating to me is that some can't even be open to that possibility.

[Kilroy]

Every other sport on the planet has evolved over the years, except golf.

Balderdash.
The rules of golf are updated regularly. Have you seen the original rules?

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but at all who feel the rules should allow for the "grey area judgement call" and apply rules in that way when playing...

The rules are what they are until they are changed. Play by them, or don't. When playing for $ I'd expect the rules to be followed. Be that on the PGA tour, or in my group (just ask them ) When no $ are on the line do whatever you like. I wouldn't recommend disclosing your "score" or "handicap" though.

If Slugger White had said "Aw it's OK Brian we'll ignore the rules of the game 'cause you didn't really benefit from touching that twig" and then Furyk had lost people would be crying fowl that the ref was an idiot... Blah blah blah...

[jonf]

Balderdash.
The rules of golf are updated regularly. Have you seen the original rules?

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but at all who feel the rules should allow for the "grey area judgement call" and apply rules in that way when playing...

The rules are what they are until they are changed. Play by them, or don't. When playing for $ I'd expect the rules to be followed. Be that on the PGA tour, or in my group (just ask them ) When no $ are on the line do whatever you like. I wouldn't recomment disclosing your "score" or "handicap" though.

If Slugger White had said "Aw it's OK Brian we'll ignore the rules of the game 'cause you didn't really benefit from touching that twig" and then Furyk had lost people would be crying fowl that the ref was an idiot... Blah blah blah...

You're begging the question though, Dan.

I agree that until the rules are changed, they must be followed as they are currently written. Nobody is disputing that. We are suggesting that it worth considering changing them. The fact that the rules currently exist in a certain form is not a logical impediment to changing them.

[Big Johnny69]

Balderdash.
The rules of golf are updated regularly. Have you seen the original rules?

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but at all who feel the rules should allow for the "grey area judgement call" and apply rules in that way when playing...

The rules are what they are until they are changed. Play by them, or don't. When playing for $ I'd expect the rules to be followed. Be that on the PGA tour, or in my group (just ask them ) When no $ are on the line do whatever you like. I wouldn't recomment disclosing your "score" or "handicap" though.

If Slugger White had said "Aw it's OK Brian we'll ignore the rules of the game 'cause you didn't really benefit from touching that twig" and then Furyk had lost people would be crying fowl that the ref was an idiot... Blah blah blah...

I accept the fact the rules are what they are, and play by them and expect the people in my group to play be them when $$ is on the line. I'm merely suggesting another aspect that could be implemented.

And in regards to your last post Dan. If interpretation was allowed within the rules, and Furyk had seen the situation and it was explained clearly, I think he would have been in agreement on Slugger's ruling. We aren't asking them to throw the rules out the window.....geez, that would be anarchy.

[justsomeguy]

And in regards to your last post Dan. If interpretation was allowed within the rules, and Furyk had seen the situation and it was explained clearly, I think he would have been in agreement on Slugger's ruling. We aren't asking them to throw the rules out the window.....geez, that would be anarchy.

In a stroke-play tournament, to be "fair" you would need to get agreement from EVERY player in the tournament - not just the ones in your group.

I don't think there is a real issue for anyone if people play by whatever rules they like in a casual setting. I think there is a BIG problem when you suggest that the rules can be whatever you want them to be in a tournament setting.

[LobWedge]

I'm with you Jon, but like I mentioned previously, the rules gurus see this debate, like the rules of golf, as black and white. I don't understand it, but everyone gets so defensive and argumentative when you question the rules of golf. Generally, in society, when you question things, in more cases than not it will lead to evolution and improvements. I'm not sure why these people can't admit that there is a "chance" that opening the rules up to discussion and possible changes couldn't make the game better. Every other sport on the planet has evolved over the years, except golf. They are so worried about messing with the tradition of the game they are affraid to even try to evolve the game. Golf seems to be the only sport where, in some cases, appears to be taking steps backwards.

For instance, in regards to this ruling. How come the player's intent can't be brought into the equation of rendering a decision???

I'll use Davis' situation as an example:

Instead of a twig that was in the path of his backswing, lets say it was a stone. Now if he took he backswing and purposedly pushed the stone back during his backswing (and it's obvious to everyone watching), you assess the penalty. But if it's a thin twig that went unoticed during address and was struck on the backswing, which in no way improved the intended path of play or the outcome, how come the penalty cannot be waived?

We that choose to question these things are not asking to have heaven and earth moved and have the entire rules revamped, just be a little open minded about the possibilty that there could be other ways at looking at things. The thing that is frustrating to me is that some can't even be open to that possibility.

People think that Rules Committees just make up rules on a whim and put no thought into things whatsoever, and it pisses me off to no end when people cry "no fair" and then don't back up the argument with anything substantial. If you think a rule is so unfair as to cause unreasonable harm to the game, then tell the RCGA/USGA/R&A why! Don't bring this weak ass "cuz it is" crap to the table. The organizations that oversee the game are always listening, and if you have something constructive to say that will make the game better, then by all means bring it, and stop whining.

If you get yourself into a situation that you think sucks and is unfair, too bad. Nobody else stuck you there. You did it yourself. And if there's a situstion where you ended up stuck because of some other circumstance, there's provisions within the rules to ensure that you're treated fairly by offering some kind of relief.

It's not like players go in to these situations blind. It's thier responsibilty to know the rules (stated in Rule 6-1, coincidentally).

[jonf]

I think there is a BIG problem when you suggest that the rules can be whatever you want them to be in a tournament setting.

Yes, that would be a big deal, if anybody had actually suggested that. But, of course, they haven't.

[Big Johnny69]

People think that Rules Committees just make up rules on a whim and put no thought into things whatsoever, and it pisses me off to no end when people cry "no fair" and then don't back up the argument with anything substantial. If you think a rule is so unfair as to cause unreasonable harm to the game, then tell the RCGA/USGA/R&A why! Don't bring this weak ass "cuz it is" crap to the table. The organizations that oversee the game are always listening, and if you have something constructive to say that will make the game better, then by all means bring it, and stop whining.

If you get yourself into a situation that you think sucks and is unfair, too bad. Nobody else stuck you there. You did it yourself. And if there's a situstion where you ended up stuck because of some other circumstance, there's provisions within the rules to ensure that you're treated fairly by offering some kind of relief.

It's not like players go in to these situations blind. It's thier responsibilty to know the rules (stated in Rule 6-1, coincidentally).

All good and valid points Rich. But I don't think anyone has stated the rule is unfair "cuz it is".

[jonf]

the rule is unfair because a man lost $400,000 on an 'infraction' that had zero effect on the integrity of his shot.

[Kilroy]

The lose impediment in a hazard rule has far reaching ramifications. In this case it was an insignificant twig. What if it was a rock? Where else would you draw it so that it can be understood by all the people who play the game? The powers that be drew a line and it applies to all objects not fixed or growing. That includes lose twigs and rocks.

They had no idea when the rules were drafted that it would cost Mr Davis a playoff so I hope he doesn't take it personally.

[jonf]

There is clearly the perception by some that all this 'whining' is just about trying to make golf easier for ourselves. Lazy weekend golfers who don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Well, this weekend golfer argued vehemently a while back that Stenson should not be allowed to take relief from a sprinkler head in the rough, allowing him to drop freely in the fairway.

So, please don't just assume that this is all about people who think golf is too hard. I don't want golf to be made easier. I want it to be made sensical.

[LobWedge]

All good and valid points Rich. But I don't think anyone has stated the rule is unfair "cuz it is".

A bit of a generalization on my part, but only to point out that no plausible alternatives are ever offered in these discussions, only whining about how much someting sucks.

BTW - jonf and justsomeguy, there is no distinction in the core playing rules that differentiates between "casual golf" and "tournament golf". Golf is golf. If you're not playing by the rules, then you're just playing someting that resembles golf.

[Big Johnny69]

The lose impediment in a hazard rule has far reaching ramifications. In this case it was an insignificant twig. What if it was a rock? Where else would you draw it so that it can be understood by all the people who play the game? The powers that be drew a line and it applies to all objects not fixed or growing. That includes lose twigs and rocks.

They had no idea when the rules were drafted that it would cost Mr Davis a playoff so I hope he doesn't take it personally.

I'm sure he didn't. And by all accounts, he took it like a champ. I didn't see the interview, but apparently he was still in good spirits. But I think his reaction to the events as they occurred is what is bothersome to most. I saw it live, and you could tell by his reaction that he didn't even notice the twig until he brushed it on his backswing. The fact that something so insignificant cost him the tourney bothers some people. You could even hear the fans booing when they got wind of what might be happening.

And I still don't understand why the don't consider the backswing as part of a stroke. They don't want you to push or drag the ball along with your club, so unless you have a backswing, how do you make a stroke???

[Big Johnny69]

A bit of a generalization on my part, but only to point out that no plausible alternatives are ever offered in these discussions, only whining about how much someting sucks.

BTW - jonf and justsomeguy, there is no distinction in the core playing rules that differentiates between "casual golf" and "tournament golf". Golf is golf. If you're not playing by the rules, then you're just playing someting that resembles golf.

Really??? No distinction between casual golf and tournament golf? But you do mention "core rules", so I assume "local" rules mention tournament golf?

[LobWedge]

And I still don't understand why the don't consider the backswing as part of a stroke. They don't want you to push or drag the ball along with your club, so unless you have a backswing, how do you make a stroke???

You don't necessarily need to start at the bottom.

[Big Johnny69]

You don't necessarily need to start at the bottom.

Unless you walk into the address position with a completed backswing, I'd say the backswing is part of the stroke. Would it not be considered an attempt at a stroke if you were to take your address position and then make a backswing like motion to get your hands/arms up to make a pass at the ball?

[Kilroy]

And I still don't understand why the don't consider the backswing as part of a stroke. They don't want you to push or drag the ball along with your club, so unless you have a backswing, how do you make a stroke???

If you can't make a backswing, take the drop. If you decide to try and then fail, take the penalty.

[Big Johnny69]

They don't. If you can't make a backswing, take the drop. If you decide to try and fial, take the penalty.

So what you are saying is that the rules force you take a penalty???? That's what your logic is saying. This whole Davis penalty is in regards to his backswing. But if the rules of golf don't acknowledge a backswing, I find it funny how you can be penalized for something that is not included in what constitutes a stroke.

So it's ok to hit/move loose impediments in a hazard on the downswing (according the rules, only thing that consitutes a stroke). So, without being able to push, drag or flip the ball with you club, logic would state you would have to pre-set yourself, step into address and then make your "stroke" at the ball. No??? If I'm Davis, according to your logic Dan, because there is a chance I might brush a 3mm think twig I should take a drop??? No way!!! Other than the twig, he definitely had a shot. Not the easiest shot, but he had a shot.

[LobWedge]

Really??? No distinction between casual golf and tournament golf? But you do mention "core rules", so I assume "local" rules mention tournament golf?

Geoff, believe it or not, the word "tournament" does not exist anywhere in any of the 33 Rules of Golf.

[Kilroy]

Not sure of the why but the fact is that "Backswing" is not mentioned in the definitions and is not included in the definition of stroke. As far as the rules are concerned the backswing is not part tof the actual stroke. If you move a lose impediment in a hazard by picking it up with your hand, you are penalized and that is certainly not part of the stroke, so I don't really understand what's puzzling you about that Geoff.

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.

[Kilroy]

So what you are saying is that the rules force you take a penalty???? That's what your logic is saying.

Not at all. The rules are forcing you to make the choice between risking a penalty and dropping outside of the hazard. You decide.