We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Verizon Heritage 2010 [Spoilers]

I am hoping Villegas gets a win however I am also pulling for Davis Love III to step up his game and pull one out. My dark horse pick needs to get on his horse and ride to the front :eek:)
 
You know Srixon is loving this playoff
 
Thainer21 said:
Brian Davis is my hero.
Click to expand...

You know what?

I know what you're saying, but in this particular case he had no choice. Since his shot was the only one being watched, if he didn't point out the nick of the loose impediment he knew damned well that some couch potato would. So while I credit him for doing the right thing, I think it was more about pragmatism than anything else.

I also believe that there needs to be an interpretive aspect to decisions such as this instead of the "black and white" which exists now - especially in this day and age when cameras are everywhere and are often used to determine infractions.


-JP
 
Re: Verizon Heritage 2010 [Spoilers]

Say what you want, I say he was just being honest. Just like badds calling himself out last year in the second round, after screwing up in the first. He needed a penalty, signed for a lower score, and dq'd himself.
 
Can somebody please point me to the rule he broke??

thanks
 
thanks..I found it...

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.
--------------------------------------

Now my question... Please give me a logical example of why this is a penalty?? So what what he hit a loose impediment?? I love this game, but sometimes I feel there are WAAAAY too many rules....(something akin to too much government)
 
Don't know if he falls into the hero class, but it's nice to know he called the penalty on himself unlike a well known LPGA star. Unless I didn't catch it right, it looks like he actually touched the stick twice, once in a practice swing and then on the real swing.

It might seem small, but no one knows how tight that stick was in the bundle, so by touching it on the way back you could get a slight feeling for how hard you must swing. If it is very pliable then you would probably continue the swing as you thought, but if it snaps back then you might just give it that little bit extra that you just found out you might need to pull the shot off.
 
Vegan702 said:
Don't know if he falls into the hero class, but it's nice to know he called the penalty on himself unlike a well known LPGA star. Unless I didn't catch it right, it looks like he actually touched the stick twice, once in a practice swing and then on the real swing.

It might seem small, but no one knows how tight that stick was in the bundle, so by touching it on the way back you could get a slight feeling for how hard you must swing. If it is very pliable then you would probably continue the swing as you thought, but if it snaps back then you might just give it that little bit extra that you just found out you might need to pull the shot off.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that particular rule is silly and that's why I believe that there needs to be some interpretation in judging an incident.

If he actually moved a loose impediment (such as the piece of reed lying directly behind his ball) then yes, he should incur a penalty. But in this case, he barely nicked that reed and it had no bearing on his lie or his shot. The reason why I think this particular rule is silly is because if that reed were alive and still rooted to the ground, there would have been no penalty at all. So to me, such a rule is hair-splitting at its finest.

Since the officials referred to the video in deciding what to do and thus could see the entire situation and the entire swing, I think they ought to have the ability to decide whether or not his touching that object had any bearing on the outcome of the shot instead of saying that "he touched it so that's that".


-JP
 
I was out there all day today and yesterday. Today i sat on 18 in the bleachers most of the round and had a great spot to watch. I saw everything from great seats and the last group with Davis and Furyk was VERY interesting.
 
2 wins for furyk since gracing the thp magazine cover! guys will be beating down the doors at thp headquarters to make the next cover.
 
Ha ha ha I never thought about that!!!!
 
After seeing the replay I agreed that it was obviously a penalty, under the black and white rule book. However, what a shotty way for a playoff to end. I'm in agreement w/ JP in that SOME rules need to be a judgement call by the officials. W/ today's TV coverage and excellent camera work, the Tour is easily able to allow the officials some leeway in reference to SOME rules. The incident today is a perfect example.

After seeing the replay over and over, I couldn't help but think to myself, "Why shouldn't an official have the power to say the player didn't do anything that might have helped his lie and/or position and judge the hit to be allowable?" But, of course, an official CAN'T do that nor can they ignore rules. It's a case of a silly rule and it might have robbed a guy of his first ever Tour win.
 
The THP Magazine good luck strikes again.
 
Dent, I'm not sure but I think he was one of those who made the cut but didn't make the "2nd cut" I've seen this before too, someone can better explain it than I can I'm sure.

The orange with Ricky Fowler is getting a little out of hand btw......

Spoiler
613x.jpg
 
I understand your point about "having to" call it on yourself... but I think it is a bit disingenuous to assume that he wouldn't have called it if it wasn't a televised event. That is a mighty pessimistic view point.

The second he took his swing he called for the marshal. He didn't see the result, there was no hesitation... he called it on himself right away. (If you listen to the replay- he made the swing, looked over and called "sluggo (?)". I don't believe it had anything to do with pragmatism and everything to do with being a golfer.


JPsuff said:
You know what?

I know what you're saying, but in this particular case he had no choice. Since his shot was the only one being watched, if he didn't point out the nick of the loose impediment he knew damned well that some couch potato would. So while I credit him for doing the right thing, I think it was more about pragmatism than anything else.

I also believe that there needs to be an interpretive aspect to decisions such as this instead of the "black and white" which exists now - especially in this day and age when cameras are everywhere and are often used to determine infractions.


-JP
Click to expand...
 
Thanks P4B,

I agree with you, Fowler's style has really gone south lately and the Full coloured everything is just not working. His taste is terrible.
 
RxGus said:
I understand your point about "having to" call it on yourself... but I think it is a bit disingenuous to assume that he wouldn't have called it if it wasn't a televised event. That is a mighty pessimistic view point.

The second he took his swing he called for the marshal. He didn't see the result, there was no hesitation... he called it on himself right away. (If you listen to the replay- he made the swing, looked over and called "sluggo (?)". I don't believe it had anything to do with pragmatism and everything to do with being a golfer.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have called it at all. I just wonder that if this had happened amidst several dozen other players still out on the course, or if it occurred in a less obvious situation, would he have called it as quickly - or even at all?

These guys are competitors first and as such, they play for whatever advantage they can. If that happened somewhere in the middle of everything, I think he may have played on and waited to see if someone called in about it. I'm not trying to take anything away from Davis' integrity, but tour-level golf is a cutthroat business and I think most players are inclined to take whatever advantage they can get - especially in a situation such as his where there's really "no harm, no foul".

They're people after all, not saints.


-JP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top