furyk oversleeps?

Its posted in the Barclays thread.
 
Good to see him own up and not make excuses about the rules, etc.
 
That sucks i get that the PGA tour has got to give these guys some reason to actually show up because i can see some people not wanting to show but if you overslept by five minutes i think it's a little too harsh to DQ him from the tournament maybe levy some kind of fine, but that's just my opinion
 
That sucks i get that the PGA tour has got to give these guys some reason to actually show up because i can see some people not wanting to show but if you overslept by five minutes i think it's a little too harsh to DQ him from the tournament maybe levy some kind of fine, but that's just my opinion

its tough..I know it only sounds like 5 minutes, I know when I did radio work I was always told "what would happen if you were 5 minutes late for a newscast or a live show" Always told to treat deadlines seriously
 
No worries. Its big enough to have its own thread.
 
This may go against the grain but I don't think the tour is being overly harsh here. They've already stated the reasoning for this rule. Many pro's in past years were backing out of the pro-ams simply cuz they didn't want to play in it. That is why the rule is in place. Sleeping in was not a consideration because the average pro is on the course warming up 2-3 hours before their start anyways. Still sucks for furyk though.

BTW I love going to pro ams. So much better atmosphere. Everyone is so much more laid back and friendlier. Not saying its better than being there on Sunday, but its fun.
 
Can't tour players not participate on the Pro-Ams?? or are they obligated too?
 
I find this amusing. Really Furyk? Glad I didnt take Sleepy for the contest.
 
I hate to see something like this happen to such a good guy, and it doesn't suprise me that he stood up and took ownership of his mistake.
 
First thing I thought of was the Seinfeld episode where the Olympic runner missed his race because he overslept. The second thing I thought was why didn't Fluff just go get him. Didn't he know where Jim was staying? If your guy doesn't show up, go find him. Worst case is he arrives while you are going to his hotel and Jim ends up taking a substitute caddy for the pro am.
 
The second thing I thought was why didn't Fluff just go get him. Didn't he know where Jim was staying? If your guy doesn't show up, go find him. .

Because everyone relies on cell phones, I am sure Fluff called him on his cell, but the cell was dead. Fluff figured why go knock on the door he'd answer his phone if was in there.
 
Fluff was probably listening to Grateful Dead mixed tapes and firing up his special pipe during this time. Fluff is the man!
 
Because everyone relies on cell phones, I am sure Fluff called him on his cell, but the cell was dead. Fluff figured why go knock on the door he'd answer his phone if was in there.

Fluff could have just called the hotel and asked for Furyk's room too. Regardless, it's not Fluff's fault Furyk didn't wake up on time.
 
I don't think it is too harsh either although Jim is a class act. I guess I would say that I would not be that amped up if the rule was a stiff fine instead of DQ but I have a funny feeling that it would be hard for the rules makers to set a fair fine. If you DQ the guy you take away his opportunity to compete and make a payday at least there and on that weekend. However if you try to replace that with a fine I would bet that it would get real hard to figure out where to set it. I am even inclined to think that a fine that would be meaningful would be less appealing to the players than the DQ. Besides, they are not all raking in tons of cash. A meaningful fine for Jim might turn out to be real heartache for some of those guys and a much worse penalty than even the toughest official would want to levy.
 
I don't think it is too harsh either although Jim is a class act. I guess I would say that I would not be that amped up if the rule was a stiff fine instead of DQ but I have a funny feeling that it would be hard for the rules makers to set a fair fine. If you DQ the guy you take away his opportunity to compete and make a payday at least there and on that weekend. However if you try to replace that with a fine I would bet that it would get real hard to figure out where to set it. I am even inclined to think that a fine that would be meaningful would be less appealing to the players than the DQ. Besides, they are not all raking in tons of cash. A meaningful fine for Jim might turn out to be real heartache for some of those guys and a much worse penalty than even the toughest official would want to levy.

I dont know about that. The 125th ranked player made just under 600k in earnings this year not including sponsor money.

But I have to agree with Phil here. You have rules that affect the outcome that only apply to half the field. That is not right.
 
Thats rough, but the rules are unflinching. It was the correct decision, (hate to sound like Javert from Les Miserables). I hope he whips tail next week!
 
I gotta agree with JB on this one if it doesn't apply to everyone then it seems a little extreme to DQ a player. What if player had a flat on the way to the course or any number of other things that could happen. So let's look at it from an every day persons vantage point, if you are late to work by 5 minutes you lose a week's pay....sound fair??????
 
I did not see that quote and went looking for it after you pointed it out JB. Making it effective for the Pro-Am event at a tourney makes no sense at all. I agree.

As for a fine I was thinking about it more from the perspective of all of the tourneys, some of which are not nearly as dollar laden as these four events coming up, and some of the paydays are not nearly as big. I figured a fine would have to relate somehow to a purse and I was not thinking about individual players average earnings. At any rate, whatever formula one used, it still sounds to me too complicated and not as fair as a DQ provided that this nutty Pro-am thing goes away.

If they want to have some leverage over players in the ProAm I wonder if it would make sense to have a fine just for the ProAm piece and keep it a DQ for regular tour events. If that were the case frankly I think I would be inclined to make it a smallish fine. I may be leaning too hard the wrong way on this one but the Pro players are doing everybody a favor participating in these ProAms as far as I can see. I have to admit that I might not know enough about the whole ProAm deal to make that statement. Seems to me they are entertainment of a different sort than the actual Pro tourneys with the benefit in holding them way over to the side of us fans, the organizers, and golf in general.
 
Tournament golf has some stupid rules. I understand what they are trying to accomplish, but dq'n a guy who is in the hunt is ridic!
 
Well I think JB has it right. DQing a guy because he is 5 minutes late for the darned ProAm when half the field does not have to be there at all is total BS, enough to make a mockery of the whole deal. How can they make a rational argument for that? What, some nonsense about the integrity of our ProAms or something? Arrrrgh
 
Well I think JB has it right. DQing a guy because he is 5 minutes late for the darned ProAm when half the field does not have to be there at all is total BS, enough to make a mockery of the whole deal. How can they make a rational argument for that? What, some nonsense about the integrity of our ProAms or something? Arrrrgh
Rules are rules. PGA on their website has already stated the rule was put into effect due to pro's using "suspect" reasons to excuse themselves from the pro-am. As for oversleeping as a reason, I think we can all agree that oversleeping is NOT a valid reason. We are arguing over the validity of the rule, not the ruling.
Lets look at a other sports, major celebrity well known players are asked to do way more public services despite it being in the contract of every player. If Peyton Manning gets penalized for not turning up at a mandatory meet and greet his response is not going to be "Well how come I had to go but not the 3rd string backup qb?" (ps the answer is people are not going to care about Jim Sorgi, or David Carr. But we do want to see Jim Furyk, Phil, and the others at our pro-am.)
I feel the problem here is that the Golfers, like all athletes are focused on the game, while the PGA is focused on the business of Golf. Pro-ams don't affect the game, winners aren't determined on wednesday. However the PGA tour understands that Wednesday Pro-ams are part of what keeps these tournaments a float. Those amateurs are paying top doller to hack around a PGA level course and pretend to be a pro for a day.
Here's a suggestion: Make the Pro-ams optional, but first come first serve to the 20-30 or so pros who sign up every week. The pro who shoots the lowest score on wednesday gets immunity from being cut on friday. Watch the pro's calmoring to get into every pro-am now. "I'm sorry Mr. Michelson you're just going to have to make the cut this week the hard way." ( I know this suggestion would never work but its just an idea to appease both sides.)
 
Rules are rules. PGA on their website has already stated the rule was put into effect due to pro's using "suspect" reasons to excuse themselves from the pro-am. As for oversleeping as a reason, I think we can all agree that oversleeping is NOT a valid reason. We are arguing over the validity of the rule, not the ruling.
Lets look at a other sports, major celebrity well known players are asked to do way more public services despite it being in the contract of every player. If Peyton Manning gets penalized for not turning up at a mandatory meet and greet his response is not going to be "Well how come I had to go but not the 3rd string backup qb?" (ps the answer is people are not going to care about Jim Sorgi, or David Carr. But we do want to see Jim Furyk, Phil, and the others at our pro-am.)
I feel the problem here is that the Golfers, like all athletes are focused on the game, while the PGA is focused on the business of Golf. Pro-ams don't affect the game, winners aren't determined on wednesday. However the PGA tour understands that Wednesday Pro-ams are part of what keeps these tournaments a float. Those amateurs are paying top doller to hack around a PGA level course and pretend to be a pro for a day.
Here's a suggestion: Make the Pro-ams optional, but first come first serve to the 20-30 or so pros who sign up every week. The pro who shoots the lowest score on wednesday gets immunity from being cut on friday. Watch the pro's calmoring to get into every pro-am now. "I'm sorry Mr. Michelson you're just going to have to make the cut this week the hard way." ( I know this suggestion would never work but its just an idea to appease both sides.)

I think more people are arguing about the penalty not the rule. As for making the pro ams optional? None of the pros would ever sign up if that were the case.

You are right, the proams want to see better players. But should they be penalized for being successful by DQ, when the rules do not apply to all golfers? You cant compare team sports with rules to this, because its just not the same. If Peyton Manning missed a meeting and was suspended for the playoffs but the meeting was only mandatory for half the players, you could make a comparison. BUt it does not work that way.

Pro-Ams keep SOME tournies afloat. Not the playoffs. Just like not the majors. The sponsor gets hurt because they have a top player out now.
 
Back
Top