We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Interesting rules issue at the web.com event today

tequila4kapp

tequila4kapp

Tom Watson called to say “Hi”
Albatross 2024 Club
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
41,043
Reaction score
10,895
Location
Tigard, OR
Handicap
USGA 13.5
By way of background, finishing top 25 or better gets a player his tour card.

The guy in 24th place (Oppenheim?) hit his drive right up against a tree, almost in a little hollow of the tree. Now coincidentally, the tree was right up against a path. There was no shot forward. There was a questionable backwards or left handed shot - questionable because the player would arguably / maybe have no backswing and would be almost scraping down the tree to pop the ball out. Clearly an unconventional play.

Player asks for relief from the path - on the assumption that he would do the backward shot (which would have him standing on the cart path) and is denied relief. The official and the player discuss it further, with the player objecting. The official asks the player "how would you play the shot if the path wasn't there?" and the player says he'd hit down on the ball and try to pop it out. The official says that's an unreasonable shot, no relief. The guys playing partner (Dickie Pride??) jumps in and says "you asked him what he'd do and he told you" (Ie, the official is effectively calling him a liar). Still no relief. The player asked for a second opinion. The ruling was upheld.

The ruling stands and the player ... takes an unplayable lie.
 
I wonder if he could have been granted a provisional to hit that shot that he would have done. To prove that it was not an unreasonable shot.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
 
I'll go watch my recording of it later and likely have more comments, but this is one of the toughest decisions for a referee to make.

He has to decide how reasonable the stated intention of the player is. He's really not trying to asses the player's chance of pulling off the shot, nor would the result if the player actually tried it matter. The official simply has to decide whether the suggested stroke is reasonable for the situation, or whether the player is only suggesting it in an effort to obtain relief. Obviously in this case, the official thought it was the latter.

Edit:

Just went and watched it. It's definitely a tough call, but I can see why both referees ruled as they did. That ball was right up against the tree trunk, nestled tightly between roots, and the player's contention was that even if the cart path were not there, he would try to tomahawk-chop vertically down at the top of the ball with the toe of his club.

Here's the relevant section of Rule 24-2b:

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

Here's a closeup of the lie:

IMG_0999-M.jpg


And here's the shot he was saying he was going to play:

IMG_1001-M.jpg



Finally, the fact that when denied relief, he took the prudent choice and took an unplayable lie is an indication the referees may have made the right call. Why would you take an unplayable when you just argued vehemently with the referee that this was the stroke you would play?
 
Last edited:
Loved seeing the opposite player sticking up for him. He was right. Saying that because he took the unplayable justifies it is hysterical. He was asked how would you play it if the cart path wasnt there.

Sometimes all you can do is chuckle a bit...
 
This is a part that frustrates me about golf. I completely understand why the rule is in place but I hate the fact that one cannot get free relief from such a lie when the tree is in bounds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Un-playable lie is the only gift in golf other than the tee.........
 
If the cart path wasn't there would he hit that backwards tomahawk stroke to advance the ball 3 feet? I don't think so. He'd take an unplayable which would in fact get him to a point similar to where the tomahawk stroke would end up anyway. I have to agree with the officials.
 
Now what would the officials' position be if he stood on the path and played the tomahawk shot even after being denied relief because they didn't believe he was going to actually try it?
 
Such a BS ruling. Complete mockery
 
It's a tough spot, Blu. I didn't like it at first because the official point blank asked the "what if" question and got an answer, so his ruling was pretty directly calling the player a liar. That's no bueno in my book. BUT if you think about it, who would really play that shot (assuming no path)? There's zero benefit to hitting the ball backwards vs dropping...hitting the ball merely adds risk of a bad result. Then on top of that the player ends up taking a drop. WTH? I mean, at that point I'd feel virtually obligated to take the shot just to not look like an ass.
 
tequila4kapp said:
It's a tough spot, Blu. I didn't like it at first because the official point blank asked the "what if" question and got an answer, so his ruling was pretty directly calling the player a liar. That's no bueno in my book. BUT if you think about it, who would really play that shot (assuming no path)? There's zero benefit to hitting the ball backwards vs dropping...hitting the ball merely adds risk of a bad result. Then on top of that the player ends up taking a drop. WTH? I mean, at that point I'd feel virtually obligated to take the shot just to not look like an ass.
Click to expand...
You try the shot just to save the distance and the penalty. of course he took the unplayable drop because he was standing on the cart path. the player said that he would have tried the shot if he wasn't on the path. he didn't get relief from the path, so he didn't want to try the shot.
 
The ruling was correct. 24-2 would consider it an impractical stroke so he should not be granted relief.
 
AG47 said:
The ruling was correct. 24-2 would consider it an impractical stroke so he should not be granted relief.
Click to expand...
Stop it with facts!!! ;)
 
Interesting situation. Judgement calls like that are tough but dont like the officials reaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top