Kuchar and an Immoveable Obstruction

[BC MIST]

Those who watched Saturday's golf action saw Matt Kuchar trying to get relief from an immovable obstruction on the 16th hole.

His ball was against a rock wall which was declared an integral part of the course. But, when taking a stance his left foot was on an irrigation pipe, which is an immovable obstruction. Normally, a player gets relief from an IO in the form of 1 club length from the nearest point of relief. However, the rules official would not allow free relief. A second official was called in and once again, free relief was not permitted and Matt had to declare his ball unplayable for which the penalty was one stroke.

For the non rules aficionados, why was relief from the drain aipe, an immovable obstruction, not granted?

[AAA]

Perhaps it was judged that in placing his foot on the pipe it was an abnormal or unreasonable stance.

[BC MIST]

Perhaps it was judged that in placing his foot on the pipe it was an abnormal or unreasonable stance.

If his stance was deemed NOT to abnormal, would you have given him relief?

[AAA]

I don't know. I didn't see the situation and there seems to be things we are not aware of.

[DenisO]

I'm pretty sure during the broadcast that seemed to be what the officials were saying, his normal stance would not have his foot on the pipe. I think the main point the officials had, were stating that he would not actually stand there and even hit the shot off the rock and go back. That he would just take the unplayable and move on, but because the pipe was there, he was trying to use it to his advantage and say that he would hit that shot.

[BC MIST]

I'm pretty sure during the broadcast that seemed to be what the officials were saying, his normal stance would not have his foot on the pipe. I think the main point the officials had, were stating that he would not actually stand there and even hit the shot off the rock and go back. That he would just take the unplayable and move on, but because the pipe was there, he was trying to use it to his advantage and say that he would hit that shot.

The ball was against the rocks and while he could make contact with the ball, he had no realistic shot in any direction. The ball, if struck, could have hit the club again, hit him, gone into the hazard.... Deeming the ball unplayable and dropping back on line with the flagstick or two club lengths to one side, was the only realistic play. IMO, then, both (a) and (b) of the exception to 25 1b were applicable, not just (b). Same result, however - no relief.

Being in the same predicament, I would have "no shot" and would deem the ball unplayable. Kuchar, however, tried to manipulate the officials into getting free relief that he did not deserve. That kind of "gamesmanship," I don't like.

[mjf]

I'll bet Tiger would have been granted relief... well, Tiger circa 2000.

[DenisO]

Or he would've gotten the gallery to move all of the stones one by one, whatever works

I'll bet Tiger would have been granted relief... well, Tiger circa 2000.

[Kiwi]

Being in the same predicament, I would have "no shot" and would deem the ball unplayable. Kuchar, however, tried to manipulate the officials into getting free relief that he did not deserve. That kind of "gamesmanship," I don't like.

Pretty obvious he was trying to get around the rule, even with my limited knowledge of the rules. Think he lost a lot of fans on that one...

[DenisO]

If he lost 'fans', then they probably weren't real fans in the first place. He's really does seem like a standup guy and an amazing player too. Hope he keeps playing well.

Pretty obvious he was trying to get around the rule, even with my limited knowledge of the rules. Think he lost a lot of fans on that one...

[mjf]

It seems to me that the players on the tour are always trying to take every possible advantage the rules will allow them. In this case I thought Kuchar was saying that if he wanted to play the ricochet shot off the rocks he'd play it like a punch shot and it appeared to me that the stance for that type of shot would very likely have had him standing on the pipe. Of course, he'd be an idiot to have tried that shot in the first place since the best he could hope for was what he'd have ended up with from an unplayable.

Having said that, I'm almost positive I've seen a player get "line of sight" relief from a tower / scoreboard / whatever when he was in the trees with no possible shot in the direction where the obstruction was.

Hey... if the rules officials say it's ok... it's ok. Why not at least ask?

[PapaPat]

Pretty much as I saw it on all counts. I also thought that the announcers did a pretty good job in this case of explaining what was going on. The comment about the fact that the drop was going provide a predictable spot for the same price as whacking it of the rocks, thus making the planned shot unreasonable, was on the money. I did not see that the 2 club lengths was even going to get him to the other side of the rocks on a nice bit of rough. I wonder how many of us watch golf on TV to see the rulings rather than the great shots. Always upsets me when they go to golf action when I know a ruling is in progress.

As for DenisO's comment of support for Kuchar, how would you have felt if it had been Sabbatini, or perhaps Michelle? He lost some face in my books. This ruling was obvious to just about everyone. His actions struck me as those I would expect from an immature junior.

[BC MIST]

Having said that, I'm almost positive I've seen a player get "line of sight" relief from a tower / scoreboard / whatever when he was in the trees with no possible shot in the direction where the obstruction was.

Hey... if the rules officials say it's ok... it's ok. Why not at least ask?

The rules for dealing with Temporary Immovable Obstructions (TIO's) are quite complicated and one would have to be both on the ground and extremely knowledgeable to judge whether any advantage was gained.

While it's true that if an RO says it's right,(even if it is not) it is, your last sentence is saying that it is OK to try to manipulate/intimidate an official into making a wrong ruling so that you may gain an advantage over the rest of the field that you don't deserve. This is obviously in conflict with The Spirit of The Game, which states, in part, "The game relies on the integrity of the individual...to abide by The Rules." Fortunately, "Well, I thought I would ask," players, are quite rare.

[PapaPat]

The rules for dealing with Temporary Immovable Obstructions (TIO's) are quite complicated and one would have to be both on the ground and extremely knowledgeable to judge whether any advantage was gained.

While it's true that if an RO says it's right,(even if it is not) it is, your last sentence is saying that it is OK to try to manipulate/intimidate an official into making a wrong ruling so that you may gain an advantage over the rest of the field that you don't deserve. This is obviously in conflict with The Spirit of The Game, which states, in part, "The game relies on the integrity of the individual...to abide by The Rules." Fortunately, "Well, I thought I would ask," players, are quite rare.

In the spring about the time of the Padrig Harrington ruling and the support he received as being a good guy and unlikely to be trying someone on, implying that others might, I had the opportunity to discuss that situation with one of our most prominent Canadian RO's who works full time with the Senior Tour. His comment was that at the highest levels virtually everyone is a good guy in this regard, regardless of what their projected personality happens to be. Accepting this, I think that this is why BC and I are somewhat surprised and disappointed by the impression we got watching Kuchar. I agree that knowledgeable, "Well I thought I would ask", players are rare at all levels. RO's have enough of a challenge dealing with those who just don't know or are harbouring some deep seated misconception (the worst), to be putting up with B.S. disagreements and requests for second opinions.

[mjf]

The rules for dealing with Temporary Immovable Obstructions (TIO's) are quite complicated and one would have to be both on the ground and extremely knowledgeable to judge whether any advantage was gained.

While it's true that if an RO says it's right,(even if it is not) it is, your last sentence is saying that it is OK to try to manipulate/intimidate an official into making a wrong ruling so that you may gain an advantage over the rest of the field that you don't deserve. This is obviously in conflict with The Spirit of The Game, which states, in part, "The game relies on the integrity of the individual...to abide by The Rules." Fortunately, "Well, I thought I would ask," players, are quite rare.

Manipulate or intimidate? I don't recall saying anything about that. "I think this is a possible interpretation of the rules... Am I right? No... Alrighty then."

Quite honestly, watching Tiger has made me somewhat jaded about the rules. Based on some of the favorable rulings I've seen him get (boulder lifted, free relief for ball lost on top of a clubhouse), I think that the guys on the PGA Tour are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they don't try to seek every opportunity available to them... within the rules.

To be clear, I wouldn't have tried to seek the relief the Kuchar was asking for... but I don't play golf on the PGA Tour.

[AAA]

Both the Tiger rulings you mention were perfectly legal.

[PapaPat]

Manipulate or intimidate? I don't recall saying anything about that. "I think this is a possible interpretation of the rules... Am I right? No... Alrighty then."

Quite honestly, watching Tiger has made me somewhat jaded about the rules. Based on some of the favorable rulings I've seen him get (boulder lifted, free relief for ball lost on top of a clubhouse), I think that the guys on the PGA Tour are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they don't try to seek every opportunity available to them... within the rules.

To be clear, I wouldn't have tried to seek the relief the Kuchar was asking for... but I don't play golf on the PGA Tour.

I think that we are all pretty much on the same page. While I may not have used the same words as BC, I think and you appear to agree, that Kuchar's actions, crossed the line.

While the topic has been beat to death over the years, at the risk of opening up the topic again, I would be interested in what specifically you thought was "favorable" about the rulings given to Tiger?

[mjf]

I'll admit, the boulder thing was perfectly legal... ridiculous, but legal.

As for the ball on top of the clubhouse. Well, unless my recollection is incorrect, the ball hadn't been found before he was given a ruling... and there were no specific rules regarding the clubhouse because nobody ever conceived of a shot going there. So, in my opinion, the rules officials just made things up on the fly and treated it the same as line of sight relief for a ball that went into the stands... but they didn't know where the ball ended up so didn't really know for sure if he deserved any relief! I suspect the vast majority of the other players would have simply said "Wow... I hit a really terrible shot there and I deserve to be punished for it." Tiger thought processes were different though... more like "I wonder what I can get away with here" (in my opinion). I think Kuchar was applying the same reasoning.

[PapaPat]

I'll admit, the boulder thing was perfectly legal... ridiculous, but legal.

As for the ball on top of the clubhouse. Well, unless my recollection is incorrect, the ball hadn't been found before he was given a ruling... and there were no specific rules regarding the clubhouse because nobody ever conceived of a shot going there. So, in my opinion, the rules officials just made things up on the fly and treated it the same as line of sight relief for a ball that went into the stands... but they didn't know where the ball ended up so didn't really know for sure if he deserved any relief! I suspect the vast majority of the other players would have simply said "Wow... I hit a really terrible shot there and I deserve to be punished for it." Tiger thought processes were different though... more like "I wonder what I can get away with here" (in my opinion). I think Kuchar was applying the same reasoning.

So a 50% takeback. As to the second point, why did the ball need to be found in order to make a ruling?

More importantly, relegating the details of the situations to lost memory banks for now, your use of the word "favorable" implies that the RO's would not have made the same rulings for any other player. Some people just love to make these completely unfounded conspiracy comments. They show no respect at all for the Senior Rules Officials and Fellow Competitors involved in the incident.

[mjf]

My point is simply this. Most people wouldn't have even considered the possibility that they could get relief in those two situations. Tiger, to his credit (which I hate to give him), asked... and was rewarded with 2 PGA Tour victories as a result.

[AAA]

Most people (players) should know that a rock is a Loose Impediment which may be removed. They should also know that ball does not have to be found in or on an Immovable Obstruction (ie the clubhouse and its environs) in order to take relief.

[steb]

Being in the same predicament, I would have "no shot" and would deem the ball unplayable. Kuchar, however, tried to manipulate the officials into getting free relief that he did not deserve. That kind of "gamesmanship," I don't like.

I don't like it either but this unfortunately is what ridiculous purses have turned professional sport into. If you don't try and manipulate the officials then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage to your competition who do.

[PapaPat]

I don't like it either but this unfortunately is what ridiculous purses have turned professional sport into. If you don't try and manipulate the officials then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage to your competition who do.

Are you talking about "professional sports" in general or Golf? If Golf, again, not much respect for the Rules Officials, the Fraternity of Players or the overall checks and balances of the game. Do you have any evidence or specific golf situations that support the level of cynicism you appear to be advocating and promoting? There are just way to many people watching for what you are saying to be true. I trust that you are not one of those who also gets upset every time "someone" points out a legitimate infraction.

[steb]

Professional sports in general, golf, and even higher than that--life. I don't for one second believe that all professional golfers are a different species that just happen to be good boys and share a common sense of what is inappropriate. Golfers may have the luxury of not having a coach demanding foul play from them or (usually) a team to let down, but they also know one stroke can mean a cut is missed, losing your job for next year or half a mill in prizemoney. It's a frustrating game and players don't always act in ways they're proud of.

You're correct--I don't get upset at all when someone points out a legitimate infraction, even if it's some armchair official.

[PapaPat]

Not a different species, but playing in a different context. Much of the discussion here deals with the inappropriateness of applying the hockey mentality, a term with which we are all very familiar, to golf. I am assured that at the highest levels of both amateur and professional golf, there is a somewhat remarkable, in light of the factors you raise, level of integrity. Perhaps naively, in the absence of much specific evidence to the contrary, I lean toward accepting this fact. From a more pragmatic point of view, I believe that the amount of money involved and the independent self-interest of the participants mitigates against any individual being able to, or even trying to, achieve an unfair advantage for very long.

[nokids]

It seems to me that the players on the tour are always trying to take every possible advantage the rules will allow them.

A few Oakland Raider sayings:

1- Just win baby!
2- If you ain't cheatin, you ain't trying
3- We knew when we prepared for Sunday we had to extra prepare for the referees.

[nokids]

It's obvious that Kuchar is a sith. He has been trained to use the dark side of the force.

[sharkshooter]

...Being in the same predicament, I would have "no shot" and would deem the ball unplayable. Kuchar, however, tried to manipulate the officials into getting free relief that he did not deserve. That kind of "gamesmanship," I don't like.

I don't mind him asking for a ruling, but asking for a second opinion was too much.

As to losing fans, I doubt it. Everyone makes mistakes, and I didn't see what his post-round comments, if any, were.

[BC MIST]

Manipulate or intimidate? I don't recall saying anything about that. "I think this is a possible interpretation of the rules... Am I right? No... Alrighty then."

I think that the guys on the PGA Tour are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they don't try to seek every opportunity available to them... within the rules.

There is an obvious difference between a player who is ignorant of a rule and asks for relief and one knows the rule but still asks. The latter IS trying to take advantage of both the official(s) and his fellow competitors. Not for one second did I believe Kuchar was unaware of the "Exception" to the rule. Knowing the rules can be advantageous, particularly when taking relief, and questioning an official for clarification and/or seeking options is proper behaviour.

I have seen video accounts of Seve and David Frost, for example, trying to con the officials into gaining a huge advantage, by wanting to break a rule and by using sarcasm and ridicule to intimidate officials.

[BC MIST]

I don't mind him asking for a ruling, but asking for a second opinion was too much.

There are players who don't now the rules, or those who think the rules is "this," when it's actually "that." If the first official gives a ruling that contradicts "this," then it is within his right and is actually encouraged, to get another opinion. That second opinion usually comes from the Referee, the official in charge, whose decision is final. When the player gets "that" from the second official, that is the end of discussion and hopefully, some learning takes place.