Is it legal to put your bag or your caddy in such a position that you are blocking the shade:
STORY
Printable View
Is it legal to put your bag or your caddy in such a position that you are blocking the shade:
STORY
That's cutting a pretty fine line with respect to the interpretation of that rule. What struck me at the time when I witnessed that on the tube was the unusual placement of Phil's bag on the tee. In fact, I watched the rest of the round to see if the bag was similarly positioned again. It wasn't. Humm.
There was definitely some discussion about where the fans were standing with respect to the shadow of the bag.
I've never seen a bag placed in that position either..........I wonder what the outcome would have been had the "offender" been a lesser known......:scratchch:scratchch
very fine line here. A lot of room for controversy. I believe this should be an infraction...He should have gotten the fan to move IMO.
can i just say...what a dumb rule...i would have been pretty disheartened with golf in general if he had been DQ'd for something like that.
If something is done to shield the player from the affect of the sun, it is a violation. Dec.14-2/3. If the bag was so placed as to shelter the ball from the sun, there would be no violation. Which one was it?
To the comment above if a player broke a rule and no one saw him do it, did he break a rule? Why does a rules infraction have to be seen and reported ONLY by a rules official or a fellow competitor/opponent? Golf is not hockey, basketball, football et al. One of golf's most important characteristics is that it is a game of honour, played by honest people who call penalties on themselves, a classic example of which is what Mark Wilson did at the Honda Classic. That a spectator, TV viewer, or hot dog stand vendor reported a possible infraction is what makes the game greater than all the rest. To disallow this kind of reporting severely weakens the basic structure of the game.
Rule 14-2 of the Rules of Golf states: “A player must not accept physical assistance or protection from the elements.”
I can hold an umbrella above my head with one hand while playing a stroke , but cant have it held ..
IMO i could place my bag beside my ball to block the suns glare off my wedge "which i did last week"
Placing his bag seems fine to me , having the crowd move in a way that blocks the sun is assisting his play of the ball , nope ....needs to be looked at
No different than having them squish up to block the wind that gusting and effecting his balance .......
All I have to say is this
ARM CHAIR RULES OFFICIAL :rolleyes :rolleyes
If that had been Woods and Super Caddy, I bet the phone would never been made.
Quote:
If that had been Woods and Super Caddy, I bet the phone would never been made.
I bet the phone would have never stopped ringing ... as much as people love Tiger (and this board is proof of it) a LOT of people would like to see him fall.
Q. May a player's caddie purposely stand between the player and the setting sun's so that the sun's glare is not in the player's face while he is playing a stroke. A. NO.
Since it was the bag(equipment) that was placed on the tee, and not the caddie, there was no infraction and is a non issue. Even if the sun was still "UP" a little, the bag is not tall enough to block the sun from the players face. Much ado about nothing.
i COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE!
WHAT MAKES THE GAME GREAT IS THE FACT THAT EACH COMPETITOR IS TRUSTED TO CALL THEMDEWLVES ON THEIR OWN INFRACTIONS, OR BE CALLED BY THEIR FELLOW COMPETITOR.
i T HINK IT IS LUDICRIOUS THAT A BUNCH OF DUMB COUCH JOCKEYS CALL IN RULES VIOLATIONS,
ONE ADDITION NEEDED TO THE RULES, IF NOT CALLED ON THE PLAYING FEILD, THEN NOT A VIOLATION, NEEDS TO BE CALLED BEFORE CARD SUIGNED AND HANDED IN.
LEAVE THE FANS AS JUST THAT, FANS TO WATCH, NOT TO GET INVOLCED. That a spectator, TV viewer, or hot dog stand vendor reported a possible infraction is what makes the game greater than all the rest. To disallow this kind of reporting severely weakens the basic structure of the game.[/quote]
It is a matter of opinion that "arm chair rules officials" should not be able to point out infractions, but it is a matter of fact, that they can. If you look past removing any influence that they may have you should be able to see a host of very negative implications for the game.
Consider this simple scenario: Tiger leading by 1 playing from a hanging lie in the left rough on 18 at Augusta. The camera focuses in on the lie as Tiger addresses the ball and the ball moves downward 1/2 inch. Tiger hits the ball makes par and wins by one. Now, 50,000,000 people saw the ball move (Penalty 1 stroke) and the ball not replaced (Penalty 1 stroke) so Tiger really lost by 1 stroke. He accepts the green jacket, the million plus in prize money, all the accolades, for NOT winning The Masters. If spectators or anyone watching on TV are NOT allowed to report infractions, this scenario will become common place. And this what you want for golf? Please explain to us why this scenario is OK with you(or pvs13131) . Can you imagine the hue and cry when this is replayed hundreds of times on TV? Tiger fans would probably be happy knowing that he cheated to win, but most golfers probably would not.
Because most of us have a hockey, football, baseball type mindset, where players try to get away with breaking the rules, unless they get caught by the on field officials, I can understand why your opinion exists and many others support it. However, golf is not an officiated sport like the others and one must look at it differently.
If you are playing by yourself and you play the wrong ball, your score is automatically two strokes higher, whether someone is there to call you, you call your self or whatever. There is no choice. It's automatic. A high stick in hockey not seen and called by the officials, is NOT a high stick. But a broken rule in golf is a broken rule, regardless of who sees it. Therein lies the subtle difference.
The problem in allowing couch officials is that tv coverage is not complete and universal. Not every player faces the same level of 'officiating' and your scenario above fails when a lesser known player wins a tournament with a Saturday/Sunday charge. What happened Thursday or Friday? Who knows.
Yes, but a violation is a violation. Certainly you can't call what you don't see, but why shouldn't they call what they do see (regardless of whether they received any help in doing so)
Depends on what you're aiming for, fairness or just a perception of fairness. I'd prefer that each hole in a tournament was mashalled by a rules official at the tee, for the approach shots, and at the green. All players benefit from the same level of officiating and are subject to equal scrutiny.
I agree that the coverage is not the same for every golfer in the tournament. I also agree (and I know better) that a Rules Violation is such and should be dealt with accordingly.
In the case of Phil and the golf bag, it was dealt with accordingly. No penalty occurred. End of discussion as far as the Committee decided.
I for one do not like the idea of Arm Chair Refs calling in rules violations in golf, for the simple fact that not everyone knows the rules of golf. They think they do, but in reality they do not. I for one will admit I do not know every rule in the book. So why would I call in what I perceived to be a violation?
Do not get me started on hockey refs :lmfao I see enough missed calls in JR B let alone the Pro Level.
By this logic then, because Joe Smuck was not seen by a camera on Thursday and Tiger was on Sunday, we should let everything go. I don't think so. Sure, not every infraction will be dealt with, but dealing with those that ARE seen is a heck of a lot better than letting everything go. Would you apply your logic to a cop that caught you for going 80 km/h in a 50 km/h zone? The guy in front of you was doing 80 also and because he got away with it, so should you?
The other reality is that there would be more infractions seen by spectators on site than there would be caught on camera. Ignore all of those, too? It would not take too long before some players would start dropping the ball more than 1 club length or finding the NICEST point of relief instead of the nearest. Think that this would not happen? Some marginal Tour players would have a field day. Does the solution of having 54 rules officials on site make sense. Actually, would you probably want to have two in each fairway because one could not cover both sides so the number would go up to 72.
My question re-written below has still not been answered by you nay sayers.
Tiger leading by 1 playing from a hanging lie in the left rough on 18 at Augusta. The camera focuses in on the lie as Tiger addresses the ball and the ball moves downward 1/2 inch. Tiger hits the ball makes par and wins by one. Now, 50,000,000 people saw the ball move (Penalty 1 stroke) and the ball not replaced (Penalty 1 stroke) so Tiger really lost by 1 stroke. He accepts the green jacket, the million plus in prize money, all the accolades, for NOT winning The Masters. Can you imagine the hue and cry when this is replayed hundreds of times on TV? Please explain to us why this scenario is OK.
I realize you and I will never agree on this but I will restate my points and then agree to disagree. I will say that a penalty is a penalty and if knowingly incurred and ignored, that person is cheating.
In fact I said that the level of on course scrutiny should be raised so that more infractions are either prevented or caught. It's near impossible for a top golfer to cheat, it should be made the same for the guy struggling to retain his card.
I thought we were talking about golf? In advocating more on course officiating, I am advocating a system where all of the 'speeders' get caught, not just the ones seen on tv. This is a sporting event and the whole point of having rules is to make sure that the best player wins through application of talent and execution. Rules should be applied equally and fairly and every person in the field should bear the same level of scrutiny.
If that were true, wouldn't it be happening already? And if so, shouldn't something be done about it? My point was that tournaments should rely more, and increase the number of, rules marshalls. If you had an official at every tee, at every approach shot and at every green, wouldn't that suffice? An official would be present for every shot and drop. I doubt this would slow down play any (full field rounds are already approaching 6 hours), it might even speed it up as rules officials would not have to be called over for rulings, they would be right there. You could easily recruit 100 rules officials/tournament.
It's obviously not ok, that's why a rules official should be there. The corresponding question is what happens when someone calls it in on Tiger, he accepts the penalty and loses the Masters by 1 to Stephen Ames who had no such scrutiny on the same shot on 18 on Friday, when he was 6 off the lead?
I knew you couldn't have someone hold an umbrella over you while it rained, but I didn't think about the sun before. Always learning with this game.
I find it kind of odd how a TV viewer can call in and suggest a video review at the masters. Imagine if you could do that in Hockey! Seems like they should have a rule that if the rules official on the ground and/or the player does not notice/see the infraction that once he tees off or plays his next shot then it's over with. Kind of like hockey and goal review if the puck drops before they go upstairs then that's it. JMO.
Now i think about , equity suggests what he did was fine
He had 2 options , get the spectators to move .....so the ball would be in the sun
or , get them to bunch together so the ball would be in shadow , or use the bag
Either senerio he gains no advantage , so no penalty IMO
BUT , had it been a tree waving in the breeze with broken shadow moving around his ball , then the crowd issue is a NO ..... and the bag one can be debated
As for couch potatoes ringing in , down under we do have something similar setup for some sports , where people can ring in and have violence off the ball looked into ....and some serious actions taken if its proved
When we equate officiating in golf with officiating in hockey, golf is doomed.
It is so simple to take a stance against the current process but a much greater challenge to see the negative implications for golf. Respect for the rules goes down the tubes if you take away the accountability that currently exits. Perhaps I am missing something obvious but I just cannot comprehend how 50,000,000 viewers on TV and perhaps thousands or hundreds of spectators in person, can see a player break a rule as in my example above, and some of you actually think that this is OK. Very strange indeed.
He never said its ok. He saying there should be a limitation on time allowed to call someone on an infraction. For instance, that reporter that followed Michelle Wie for a round and noticed she took an incorrect drop. Conveniently (as some said because I believe he was a "Wie hater" so to speak) didn't report the infraction until the next day once Michelle had already signed her card.
I believe the tour does have a time limit of after the tournament is complete no more violations can be reported. Which if you are going to allow someone to call in a day late you should be allowed to call in a day late after the tourney is over.
You can compare hockey and golf if you want to compare spectators calling in infractions. If people at home watching golf are allowed, why not people at home watching hockey. There is other competitors and rules officials watching at golf tournaments that miss infractions, and referees at hockey games that miss infractions. So let the hockey fans call in as well then.
Personally, they have enough cameras and people around a golf tourney, if they can't spot the infraction there's a problem and I don't think Joe Shmoo at home should be calling it in. What does that say abou the tour when their spectators have to call in the penalties on players???
But of course this is just my opinion, the Tour has its rules and probably won't be changing them anytime soon.
Exactly Geoff, you said much better then I could have. I didn't say that is was ok or that the rule is not justified but they way it was reported and handled seems odd. I'd love to be able to phone in penalties I see while at home watching the playoffs, the Sens would be on a power play for 60 mins! I think it is good for golfers such as ourselves to have forums like this to talk about hat we see on TV and rules etc. but the tour should regulate themselves and not listen to Joe Blow.
I like spackler's idea of having constant rules officials with every group. I'm sure they're would be enough people wanting to volunteer to help. It would also help with the situations where the players have to wait for a ruling because no one was close by.
For my part I miss the point of comparing compliance with, and the enforcement of, the rules of the game in hockey and in golf. The two sports are fundamentally different in that regard. The honourable game of golf is predicated on full compliance with the rules, combined with the expectation that each player will self-report any rules violations that he/she or anyone else in the field may have committed. By contrast, there is no expectation in hockey that there will be complete compliance with the rules. Not only that, but no responsibility is placed on individual players to report their own transgressions. Enforcement in hockey is left solely to the referees. If the referee doesn’t call a penalty during the play, it effectively did not happen. It is not surprising then that the culture of hockey supports players in denying and obfuscating their own culpability for rules’ violations. By contrast, a golfer’s response to being made aware of having committed a penalty should be to say: “Thank you for pointing that out to me. I hadn’t realized it.”
This fundamental difference between the two games explains why golf welcomes being advised by anyone in a timely manner (the timing differences between stroke play and match play are significant in this regard, but that should be the matter of another thread) of a rules violation and hockey does not. One may not like “outsiders” calling in, but the rules of the game of golf and their interpretation have logically accepted such interventions, because they are consistent with the fundamental belief that golf is meant to be played in full compliance with the rules.
You make very good points Mike. But I was not comparing the rules of golf to the rules of hockey. What I was saying was that if you let people watching at home call in for one sport, why not the other??? In that regard its the same thing. And in contrast, when you lace them up for a game of hockey you are going out there with the intention to play within the rules just like golf. Only difference is, you are having someone else call the infractions on you instead of calling them on yourself.
And this is where I have a problem with golf, its the only sport (other than rugby down under apparently) that lets outsiders possibly decide the outcome of an event. Is it ok to let someone win an event after breaking the rules but wasn't reported, of course not? But that's mostly the fault of the tour. The players should be aware of all the rules (and we all know most don't even know half the rules) and they should have officials out there policing. There is nothing more I hate than watching a player have a great round only to find out they were disqualified the next day for signing and incorrect scorecard due to an infraction that Joe Public called in after the round was over. Some rules are pretty obscure (see Duffy Waldorf fixing a divot a couple of feet in front of his ball someone before him forgot to fix) and although its the player's responsibility to know them all, the PGA has enough cameras etc at each event that somone should notice these things and be able to report them to the player so they could correct their score so they are not disqualified.
I think that is the problem most people have with Joe Public calling in. They aren't saying its ok to cheat or break rules, they just don't like seeing someone who could be 2000 miles away determine the outcome of a tournament. The PGA should improve their inhouse rule enforcing to help correct these issues.
This is where we differ. Joe Public is not determining the outcome of the event. That individual is simply raising, presumably in a timely fashion, a rules question. The rules themselves dictate the manner in which the game is played and is scored. If there is a rules violation detected as a result of the call, then it is the rules themselves that dictate the outcome.
So I am confused. In one sentence, some of you are saying that golf is a game of honour and the next sentence that if we took the ability of the for fans to call in all heck would break loose. So which is it? Do you think that just because cameras are on them that they play by the rules? What about the Canadian tour, nationwide tour and about 50 other tours that don't get much if any TV coverage. If it's such a game of honour then why the need for allowing fans to call in and call rules? And if there is a need to allow people to call in then surely there is a need for rules officials (and several of them) on each hole.
If my honourable members of the opposition don't "get it" after reading your post Mike, they never will. This is probably the best post on the topic that I have ever seen.
In response to a couple of things Geoff said: "I believe the tour does have a time limit of after the tournament is complete no more violations can be reported. "It is not the Tour that makes this decision but it is the Rules of Golf. Rule 34-1(b) says that a competition is closed when the results have been announced.
Secondly, regarding the Michelle Wie incident, Michelle inadvertently broke a rule of golf and for that she was disqualified. While you can say that it is not OK by suggesting that because a reporter made officials aware of the infraction a day late, IS really saying that it is OK to break a rule. You can't have it both ways. The competition was not closed when she was "called" for her infraction.
While it certainly MAY sound snobbish, golf is an honourable game as described my Michael above, very different from hockey and stands far above hockey. However, if one equates golf and hockey, one may be missing some of the essence of the game.
As an aside to the above, over the years I have seen and called many golfers, and some of them very good ones, for breaking rules to gain an advantage. In some cases I have been berated, sworn at, threatened and ostracized for doing so. Without exception, they were all former football and/or hockey players who still retained the mindset of those games.
You say others don't get it, you aren't getting others points as well. I'm not comparing hockey to golf, I'm comparing spectators at home watching the sports. You know why hockey doesn't allow fans to call in infractions, because they police their own which I believe the Tour should do as well. And obviously if rule violations are being called in by couch potatoes they aren't doing a good job of either
A) Making sure their players are well aware of all the rules of golf
Or B) Do not have enough people watching these guys to make sure the rules are being abided by or to catch infractions. Lord knows they have enough cameras.
You were critical of Terry Clarke for his views on a subject and not seeing the other side of a discussion, the same could be said of you here. I can see where the likes of yourself and Mike are coming from but it doesn't look like you'd even consider the other side of the coin. Of course golf is an honourable game but I believe there is faults with it that if looked at by the Tour and its management could improve the game.
Basically I don't care if 300,000,000 people see it on tv, the Tour should have enough people at an event to catch things like that so people outside of the event don't have to have an outcome on the tourney.
Sorry for the bold type, needed to use it to differentiate my remarks and yours. :)
Once again I'm done on a subject, this has been beaten to death in threads before. Some have one opinion, others have another, its what makes it great here to have lively discussions.