Marcel Siem's unplayable at the 18th...

In case you didn't see it yesterday, Marcel Siem hit a rank approach shot into the 18th and ended up about 20 yards left of the green, underneath a bush. He rather hastily declared the ball unplayable and measured 2 club lengths backwards/sideways. To the bemusement of the commentators, he then - twice - deliberately dropped his ball onto a rock so that both times the ball pinged off and came to rest outside the 2 club length boundary. Accordingly, he was then required to place the ball where it had contacted the ground...on the rock. Under the watchful eye of John Paramor, Siem tried to place the ball on the rock, and of course it rolled off. So he then had to place the ball at the nearest available spot, which was right behind the rock. "Oh no", came the commentators response. "That wasn't well thought out...now what's he going to do?". Answer, move the rock as a loose impediment and give yourself a perfect lie.

Now, in this case the "lie" wasn't perfect because there was a tree in his swing, and his resulting steep shot came off the hosel, shot left and rather luckily hit the crowd and bounced toward the green. Had the crowd not been there, it looked like he was heading for even bigger troubles. He made it up and down from there for a double. But in other circumstances, the tree wouldn't be there and a massive advantage is gained.

Now Marcel Siem did nothing illegal here - everything he did was allowed under the rules. But deliberately or not, he managed to "expose" some slight flaws in the rules...or at least, that's my opinion.

Firstly, should a player be allowed to deliberately drop the ball onto an object - such a a rock - in order to make sure the ball doesn't come to rest in the designated area, thus allowing him to place the ball for a decent lie? Doesn't this take the "randomness" out of the equation?

Secondly, having dropped onto that object, should that same object be allowed to be removed from the equation as if it never existed? Basically, he used the rock to his advantage when dropping and then removed it when it was a problem in his shot. That's having your cake and eating it, right?

For unplayable lie's, there are 3 options;

- play a ball from where the last shot was played, or
- drop a ball any distance behind the point where the ball lay keeping a straight line between the hole, the point where the ball lay and the spot on which the ball is dropped, or
- drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the ball lies not nearer the hole

I must say that i am not a fan of the 3rd option here (controversial, but just my opinion). For me this can too often offer an easy "get out of jail" option. Yes, you get penalised a stroke, but you can take yourself from a nightmare spot under a bush, against a root in 3ft deep rough to a nice, clean, soft lie with an full swing. Yes, you could argue that this is also the case with option 2, but generally the unplayable is taken because of a tree, a bush, a rock etc, and at least with option 2 that hazrad is still partly in play. For me i think i'd prefer to see just option 1 and 2 on offer.

Any thoughts?

That situation puzzled me yesterday, though I was watching it in a pub and couldn't hear anything of use that the commentators may have been saying.

As I understand it, when a player takes a penalty drop like that, he has put (for example) a tee peg into the ground marking the 2 club point of relief. The ball, when dropped, must first hit the ground within that 2 club limit.

Now we get to the point where I'm confused. As I understand it, as long as the ball first strikes the ground within that 2 club limit point, it may roll up to a further 2 club lengths without requiring to re-drop - as long as this doesn't take the ball nearer the hole. Now from the TV angle it was unclear to me if the ball was moving closer to the pin or not. I can only assume that it was, otherwise he wouldn't have had the option of re-dropping - but it didn't look that way from the (admittedly poor) camera angle

So my question is; when he dropped the ball onto this rock, was it then bouncing closer to the hole or beyond the further 2 club limit?

It was bouncing more than 2 club lengths away mate. It was always going to given that he's deliberately dropping it from around 6ft onto a solid rock.

OK fairy nuff. As I said, I couldn't really tell

Hardly sporting~Seve would have been proud of that one.

Is there not a case for a 'playing within the spirit of the game' rule.

People always advise learning the rules properly and you can use them to your advantage in certain situations.
I say fair play to him. In fact i'm very impressed. In no way was Siem cheating. He used his knowledge of the rules to obtain the best possible outcome and i think that is to be applauded.

Alternatively, Marcel Siem was caught up in the moment and didn't really know what he was doing; even Townsend said he spoke to Paramor who said he wish he could have advised Siem (he couldn't of course) a better way to place his ball. In the end, Siem was rescued by a lovely little chip for his 5th shot leaving him a tap in.

If Siem was bending the rules, I'd say he did a poor job of it.

kwini

Are players not allowed to ask the referee for advice (on the rules)? I didn't realise that. So the referees can only tell a player when he has committed an infringement rather than explaining the options he has available? Or have I misunderstood your post?

Whilst this is not outwith the Rules, in my mind it is tantamount to cheating. Saw Woods do a similar thing once where he dropped it twice on a slope and then placed it beautifully [the only thing missing was a tee to put it on !].

The spirt of the game means nothing to a number of these guys.......

d4s,
I think Townsend was suggesting that Siem didn't ask Paramor to go through the options available to him, and that he proceeded on what appeared to be his own manic path.
My understanding is that the official can only answer specific questions about rules interpretations and not offer advice unasked.

kwini

I guess that would make sense then, if the referee only replies to what he is asked then that won't put him in a position of showing any favourtism towards any player. Guess they have to be so careful now with cameras and microphones everywhere.

The only good thing about it was he hit a bad shot and dropped 2 shots on the hole. I must admit I am a big believer in playing in the spirit of the rules rather than trying to bend them.

I know the money advantages of the game are great, but should these so called Pro's not have a responsibility for the young ones watching, to play the game in the spirit it was intended to played, rather than trying to bend the rules to their advantage

theeldestboy wrote:For unplayable lie's, there are 3 options;

- play a ball from where the last shot was played, or
- drop a ball any distance behind the point where the ball lay keeping a straight line between the hole, the point where the ball lay and the spot on which the ball is dropped, or
- drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the ball lies not nearer the hole

I must say that i am not a fan of the 3rd option here (controversial, but just my opinion). For me this can too often offer an easy "get out of jail" option. Yes, you get penalised a stroke, but you can take yourself from a nightmare spot under a bush, against a root in 3ft deep rough to a nice, clean, soft lie with an full swing. Yes, you could argue that this is also the case with option 2, but generally the unplayable is taken because of a tree, a bush, a rock etc, and at least with option 2 that hazrad is still partly in play. For me i think i'd prefer to see just option 1 and 2 on offer.

Any thoughts?

Further to my previous point, i think it would be better for a 2 shot penalty to be incurred when a player chooses to declare their ball unplayable. Taking an unplayable is almost too easy and option. For example, Marcel Siem's initial lie in the situation above was bad, but not mega-disasterous. By the looks of things, he may well have been able to get a wedge or putter on it and hacked it out to a better position. In the event though (having played 2 shots), the decision was already made for him by the ruling. His choice was;

- have a go at getting out and risk (a) failing to get it out (b) finding a horrible lie or (c) finding an equally horrible position, and either way be playing 4

or

- declare an unplayable lie, have a 180 degree choice of dropping point and be pretty much guaranteed a stance and lie (or at least a much better one) and still be playing 4.

Where's the choice there? I'd much rather see the declaration of an unplayable ball be a 2 stroke penalty, thus forcing the professionals to think harder about what to do, and in many cases make them have a go at getting out of the dodgy situation they have found themselves in. I think that, based on yesterday's example, if an unplayable ball were a 2 stroke penalty, Siem would have made a decision to have a go at playing the ball from where it was. That's fairer to the players and better viewing for the fans!

Kwini, really you think he didn't know what he was doing? I wonder why drop it on the rock then??

Goodwalk, tantamount to cheating? How ridiculous! Where do the rules say 'if you hit a bad shot you must end up in a bad situation'? Surely he used the rules rather than broke them?!

MPB,
I just thought he looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights.
But: Even if he did deliberately drop it on the rock, what was he thinking?

kwinigolfer wrote:But: Even if he did deliberately drop it on the rock, what was he thinking?

I agree. If this was a cleverly thought out ploy on the part of Marcel Siem, it was...well...not very cleverly thought out. Yup, he may well have assured himself a decentish lie, but the rather large tree in his backswing (how did he not consider that?) meant that his next shot was going to be all but impossible, and so it proved. He got exceptionally lucky by the fact that he shanked his subsequent shot into the spectators and it bounced back toward the green. Had they not been there, he would have faced a very difficult shot (or pehaps OOB) and would have been looking at triple bogey or worse.

I was going to say maybe he was thinking 'I'll drop this on the rock and assure myself being able to place it before removing the rock'.
I suppose the tree being there might imply it wasnt all thought through.

I'm less impressed now!

Manipulation of the rules in that manner is pretty close to cheating in my book...

Kwini/D4s - I am sure I have heard pros ask "what are my options here?" I can understand that JP can't offer advice but am sure he would respond to this question.

D4S - enjoyed todays round very much - good luck if you and Andy enter the strokeplay, but I wouldn't fancy/survive 36 there!!!

Agreed, but the Townsend inference was that Paramor wasn't asked, just brought in to ensure what Marcel was doing was within the rules. 'Course, Townsend's a failed golfer so he might not be right about that.

Could be harsher - he's a failed American golfer!!! How's is the budget and the future of the world economy over there today?
I see Ms Bachmann thinks Europe is a backwater that Americans should avoid at all costs less they become contaminated by our taxes etc etc etc!! Yawn

I think the American debt is in an unplayable lie. Not worth consulting John Paramor for options available; the will to move forward is all that's necessary (and decidedly lacking).

Bachman's an idiot, let's hope she gets the Repub nomination.

goodwalkspoiled wrote:Manipulation of the rules in that manner is pretty close to cheating in my book...

I view being a cheat like being pregnant - you either are or you aren't..being "close" is not a consideration.

Care needs to be taken here. Clearly he's not a cheat - the chief European rules official was there and oversaw everything. Say what you want about the spirit of what he did if you like, but the word cheat can only be applied to breaches of the letter of the law.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

goodwalkspoiled wrote:Manipulation of the rules in that manner is pretty close to cheating in my book...

I view being a cheat like being pregnant - you either are or you aren't..being "close" is not a consideration.

Care needs to be taken here. Clearly he's not a cheat - the chief European rules official was there and oversaw everything. Say what you want about the spirit of what he did if you like, but the word cheat can only be applied to breaches of the letter of the law.

That's true Bob, but it's dangerous ground and a very grey area. Read the section on etiquette in the R&A rulebook. There are a thousand ways i could breach the "spirit of the game rule" without doing anything illegal. "Consideration of Others", "Care for the Course" and other sections are "nice to haves" and rely upon the integrity of the players to enforce them. But breaches to these "guidelines" are not illegal, and based on the rules are very difficult to punish.

[quote="theeldestboy"]

Bob_the_Job wrote:

That's true Bob, but it's dangerous ground and a very grey area.

I agree with with what you're saying, but I view carelessly chucking the word "cheat" about to be equally dangerous.

I didn't see any of the final round on sunday, but from what i've read here and seen since on sports news. He cannot be classed as a cheat because what he's done is to the letter of the law. Some may see it as bending the rules to suit but as long as he doesn't break them then there really is no issue and he didn't get the reward he was looking for out of it either.

the rules are open to conjecture in as much that yes they can be often over penal but knowing them well enough can make them work in your favour as he tried to do here. I really don't have an issue with what Siem did there as it was within the rules.

What I did find amusing/interesting was Jeev Singhs faux pas on the saturday, I can't remember the hole it occured on but basically he hit one into the cabbage, took an unplayable went back behined the trees in hope that once he'd dropped his ball he could then move the barriers to play a low shot through the trees. Only to find that even though the barriers were lightweight were deemed immovable obstructions under tournament rules therefore ended up being able to drop his ball virtually in the clear of all the guff outside the barriers nearer to the fairway!

I liked Radar's take on it. He could have bunted it out onto some grass using the back towards the target and one handed swing. Would have taken out the bare lie for his next shot. Always a risk but then so was trying to be smart with the drop.

Rules/integrity wise you cant question him though.

I don't see how it's any closer to cheating than using your hybrid for a greenside chip.
He saw a way of doing it that others may not have seen which he thought would get him the best possible outcome, all within the rules

And using a hybrid for a greenside chip is no more cheating than not raking a bunker or standing on someone's putting line.

theeldestboy wrote:And using a hybrid for a greenside chip is no more cheating than not raking a bunker or standing on someone's putting line.

Well, no but that's rather different as not raking a bunker is likely to have a direct affect on someone else's shot. Using your hybrid or the drop Siem chose to take doesn't

MustPuttBetter wrote:

theeldestboy wrote:And using a hybrid for a greenside chip is no more cheating than not raking a bunker or standing on someone's putting line.

Well, no but that's rather different as not raking a bunker is likely to have a direct affect on someone else's shot. Using your hybrid or the drop Siem chose to take doesn't

True, but we can't have it both ways. We either stick entirely to the letter of the law, with everything that comes with it (irrespective of who or what that affects), or we don't. Both Siem's action and (for example) me not raking a bunker are not illegal under the rules. However, they both fall foul the unwritten "spirit of the game" rules. Unfortunately, people do want it both ways.

Those who advocate the "work to rule" approach to golf can not and should not moan about unraked bunkers, people talking in their swing, unrepaired divot and pichmarks etc etc etc. None of those are breaches of the rules. And nor was Siem's implementation of the dropping rule.

I think we are introducing a third element into this debate, that of gamesmanship. Talking during someone's swing etc I would definitely class as gamesmanship. Seve was a master at this but nobody would ever consider him a cheat.

D4S I think you hit the nail on the head.

I think this thread is evolving threefold. In that the Siem did nothing wrong whatsoever he followed the rules and I cannot see how it can be classed that it wasn't it the spirit of the game.. It was in the rules so as far as i can see thats it.

Spirit of the game/Etiquette e.g ranking bunkers so the guy behind doesn't get stuck in a huge hoof mark from an inconsiderate oaf! Walking on someones line

Gamesmanship, talking on a backswing the odd cough here and there etc

3 very seperate issues all require discussion on their own merit

Eldest, i don't think it is having it both ways.

You stick to the rules, after that you stick to good ettiquette and after that you can do what is best for you as long as it is within the rules and within good ettiquette.

Surely something cannot be considered bad ettitquette if it affects no-one else or indeed if it is appropriate/allowed.
I wouldn't talk business at dinner with my mother in law but would on my own or in a meeting.

Not raking a bunker is bad ettiquette for precisely the reason that it affects others, as is treading on a putt or talking in a swing.

What was he supposed to do? Say 'i've hit a bad shot, if i drop it there i've a chance but if i drop it here i'm screwed. I really should have a bad lie so i'll drop it here.....'
Really?

There are also enough cases where a player is penalised because of a petty and stupid rule so if a player uses the rules to their advantage then good on 'em!

Does anyone here think that Siem did anything that any other player wouldn't have done? I think just about every other player on tour would have done everything possible to get the best possible outcome with the least damage by staying within the rules.

As this incident took place under the guidance of John Paramor's eagle eye and he was satisfied with his actions, I see no problem.

drive4show wrote:Does anyone here think that Siem did anything that any other player wouldn't have done? I think just about every other player on tour would have done everything possible to get the best possible outcome with the least damage by staying within the rules.

As this incident took place under the guidance of John Paramor's eagle eye and he was satisfied with his actions, I see no problem.

Agreed

Never mind tour players. I'm happy to admit myself that i'd do exactly the same thing. It's within the rules not harming anyone or affecting one so cannot see the issue

Would be interested in folk's take on the occasion where Tiger Woods "employed" about half a dozen spectators to move a large boulder [which he was unable to shifty himself] on the basis it was a moveable object.....

goodwalkspoiled wrote:Would be interested in folk's take on the occasion where Tiger Woods "employed" about half a dozen spectators to move a large boulder [which he was unable to shifty himself] on the basis it was a moveable object.....

That's a very good point. I think it falls within all the above criteria of not breaking any rules etc but you have to consider the same situation happening to Joe Nobody that has 1 man and his dog following him round. instead of thousands of people with enough grunt to move said 'loose impediment'

I guess you have to apply these rules in such as way that everyone receives the same advantage. Maybe in the above situation, those people moving the boulder should have been restricted to just the player and his caddy?

Agree completely with D4S
Why that rule isn't changed to say 'moveable by the player' or the player and his caddy i've no idea!
Surely almost any onbject is a 'loose impediment' given enough men!

drive4show wrote:

goodwalkspoiled wrote:Would be interested in folk's take on the occasion where Tiger Woods "employed" about half a dozen spectators to move a large boulder [which he was unable to shifty himself] on the basis it was a moveable object.....

That's a very good point. I think it falls within all the above criteria of not breaking any rules etc but you have to consider the same situation happening to Joe Nobody that has 1 man and his dog following him round. instead of thousands of people with enough grunt to move said 'loose impediment'

I guess you have to apply these rules in such as way that everyone receives the same advantage. Maybe in the above situation, those people moving the boulder should have been restricted to just the player and his caddy?

This also touches on the various penalties by television camera as the players being followed by one man and his dog are not going to be shown on TV as much as the top stars. The advantages for players that are followed by more people will always be there, from trampled down rough to balls bouncing off fans to balls being found using TV replays. Tough to make it completely even...

could dismantle a clubhouse with enough bodies, equipment and time....surprised some of the pros haven't tried it !

There was the incident where tiger got rather odd relief from a clubhouse that was OOB!!!

Mav is that the clubhouse roof incident at Firestone?
I thought the reason he got relief was becuase the clubhouse was not deemed OOB
Still odd mind you!

i think it was firestone, but my memory is not great when it comes to these incidents as some get over blown.

But from memory he got relief from an Air Con unit or something like that but rest of clubhouse was deemed OOB or something, hopefully someone else can shed better light on that subject

I also remeber the incident but not the exact details. I'm sure the ball was about 300 yards OOB but he got a free drop. Maybe Tiger was 'friends' with the tournament director's daughter at the time and he thought 'kerching!' if I keep him sweet

Having just done a quick Google search, the reason Tiger got relief was becuase the clubhouse - for some crazy reason! - was not deemed out of bounds. Daivd Love made some comments after about thinking it would be OOB

Air conditioning unit it was

Thought it was an Air Con unit.. I also remember a few of the other players complaining all week that they were under impression it was OOB and that Tiger was being treated favourably. I think one guy even went back to replay a shot as he hit the clubhouse!

MustPuttBetter wrote:
I wouldn't talk business at dinner with my mother in law but would on my own or in a meeting.

My mum warned me about people who talk to themselves. But talking business to yourself? I just hope you get the deal, and don't beat yourself down on price too much!