interesting rulings

came across this today while pretending to work.... some interesting ones in there

http://www.golf.com/photos/notable-golf-rules-incidents-2012/jim-furyk-graeme-mcdowell-2012-ryder-cup

Some pretty crazy stuff there.

I hate the jobsworths like Furyk who take it so literally. It's matchplay for goodness sake, use a bit of common sense.

So what was Furyks point exactly? Most courses that have sprinkler heads have a local rule that states that if a ball comes to rest on or near a sprinkler head such that the stance or stroke would be affected then relief may be obtained. Was the ball behind it and McDowell wanted to putt rather than chip?

Aren't we being a little quick to criticise Furyk? Perhaps he was within his rights? Perhaps the discussion was whether the sprinkler head actually interferred with stance or swing. Perhaps GMac was trying his luck? (It has been known - remember Paramor and Ballesteros). The fact that the rules official found in Furyk's favour might just suggest this was the case?

There we go...It was a debatable one and ultimately although they won the hole the incident backfired on the Americans by firing the European up.

http://www.mynegm.com/golf/golf-writers-column/rosss-rulings/early-rules-dispute-sets-tone-ryder-cup/

Sprinkler heads are usually classed as immovable obstructions, unless there's a local rule about them, rule 24.2 applies. In my experience, few clubs have local rules about sprinkler heads.

Given that a sprinkler head is an immovable obstruction - which in the Ryder Cup it was - then you get relief only if the ball is lying on or against the sprinkler head, your swing is affected by it, or you'd be standing on it. If the sprinkler head is between your ball and the hole (assuming you are off the green), then it's just bad luck. Chip it or putt round it.

It's amazing pros don't know this stuff. Furyk was right to protest.

JAS - That's what I want to know. How "close" does the sprinkler head have to be to "affect" your shot. I've always thought it had to impact either your stance or the immediate area where you strike the ball. Furyk well within his rights to question it IMO.

I would have thought that McIlroy's sand-brushing infringement at Abu Dhabi should have been included - especially as he lost the tournament as a result(?).

Westwood's ball-in-the-tree was also possibly notable given it was arguably a crucial moment in the US Open, but that was a straightforward lost ball incident in the end.

I note there isn't a mention of any irritating "armchair referee" episodes (e.g. Whiteford ball moving / eventual DQ), but on reflection, I'm glad there hasn't been a proliferation of them as I half-expected.

George has this spot on and I suspect Mcdoo was chancing his luck. It is good to see Furyk knows the rules and questioned a poor application of them.

the overriding thing that i notice from these is that although pros and amateurs play under the same rules, the rules are applied quite differently in practise.
Tiger getting a drop because someone must have picked up ball (heaven forbid his bad shot might actually have gone into a bush) or Rory getting a drop from a tree rather than hitting 3 off the tee too.
Imagine telling your playing partners on a saturday that you are taking a drop because the ball didnt come down from the tree!

Years ago, Gary Player was at Wentworth for the match play. He was on the 14th hole and had hit his ball into a pine tree short right of the green. The ball had alegedly stayed up the tree. He borrowed a pair of binoculars to see whether he could identify the ball they could see was his. If he had been able to positively identify the ball, he could have taken a penalty drop. He could not, the ball was declared lost and conceded the hole. That's the way it used to be - much more black and white. It would appear that these days the balance of probability has entered the equation and rulings are becoming much too lenient. I like "black and white"!

hend085 wrote:the overriding thing that i notice from these is that although pros and amateurs play under the same rules, the rules are applied quite differently in practise.
Tiger getting a drop because someone must have picked up ball (heaven forbid his bad shot might actually have gone into a bush) or Rory getting a drop from a tree rather than hitting 3 off the tee too.
Imagine telling your playing partners on a saturday that you are taking a drop because the ball didnt come down from the tree!

That's a very good point, but the difference between the amateur game and the pro game is that the pros have spectators to see where the ball goes, and what happens to it. So if someone says that the ball was picked up by a spectator or it stuck in a tree then I guess the ref has to accept that.

Surely you can only avoid the lost ball rule for a ball stuck up a tree if you can positively identify it? I thought that's what TV did for Rory?
Westwood, and Phil earlier in the tournament, were unable to do that and had to play three off the tee.

Tiger didnt positively identify it in his case though!

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely you can only avoid the lost ball rule for a ball stuck up a tree if you can positively identify it? I thought that's what TV did for Rory?
Westwood, and Phil earlier in the tournament, were unable to do that and had to play three off the tee.

Yes, I don't understand why Rory got to take an unplayable lie. Maybe he said it was his ball...

I thought the cameras showed the ball getting stuck and I'm sure they showed the finishing position of the ball. I also thought they showed Rory collecting the ball so he was able to identify it as being his ball.

Correct Grumps - 'course if no caneras were present, it would have been back to the tee for him.

hend0,
That was the call of the rules official on the ground . . . . . seemed a favourable placement to me, but perhaps a fair ruling, we just will never know!

As mentioned previously that is one of the main differences between their game and our game. You would have to wonder how they would get on without the cameras, spotters and crowd to show them where their ball ended up.

Remember that massive rock that a load of spectators moved for Tiger a few years ago? Another difference for the Tour.
YouTube link

Yes, point taken but least the rules were changed after that INW. Now a "loose" impediment can only be moved by the player rather than a team of people.

JAS wrote:So what was Furyks point exactly? Most courses that have sprinkler heads have a local rule that states that if a ball comes to rest on or near a sprinkler head such that the stance or stroke would be affected then relief may be obtained. Was the ball behind it and McDowell wanted to putt rather than chip?

i know this one as i've fallen foul of it myself

a sprinkler head is an immovable obstruction and according to the rules of golf you only get relief if your ball lies on it or affects your stance or swing

however there is a local rule that is implemented at the vast majority of courses (at least in the uk) that says if the sprinkler head is within one club length of the putting surface and your ball is within one club length of the sprinkler and on your line, then you get free relief

perhaps gmac was just asking if the local rule applied or if the one club length stipulation was true

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:Yes, point taken but least the rules were changed after that INW. Now a "loose" impediment can only be moved by the player rather than a team of people.

Is that so? I didn't know that.

George I misspoke. I thought the rule was changed because of what Tiger got the crowd to do but they still allow you to employ a team. However removal cannot unduly delay play which employing a team to move a loose impediment may do. This rules stuff is simple?!?

Slowride wrote:
however there is a local rule that is implemented at the vast majority of courses (at least in the uk) that says if the sprinkler head is within one club length of the putting surface and your ball is within one club length of the sprinkler and on your line, then you get free relief

The recommended local rule in the Rules of Golf Appendix is immoveable obstruction (eg sprinkler head) within two club lengths of green and ball within two club lengths of obstruction not one. That's not to say that some clubs may have taken the view that two club lengths is too far.

isn't the rule of thumb generally:
1 club length for relief
2 club lengths for penalty
?

Slowride wrote:

however there is a local rule that is implemented at the vast majority of courses (at least in the uk) that says if the sprinkler head is within one club length of the putting surface and your ball is within one club length of the sprinkler and on your line, then you get free relief

Can't imagine the rule says "on your line" ? There is no such thing. You mean on the direct line between ball & hole.

There is no rule in golf that forces you to play the direct route, therefore "on your line" would never appear in the rules.

Set Up,

I think this covers Slowride's interpretation which I think is spot on. This is the R&A's suggested wording.
.
“Relief from interference by an immovable obstruction may be taken under
Rule 24-2.
In addition, if a ball lies through the green and an immovable obstruction on
or within two club-lengths of the putting green and within two club-lengths
of the ball intervenes on the line of play between the ball and the hole, the
player may take relief as follows:

There is also a definition in the rules
Line of Play
The “line of play’’ is the direction that the player wishes his ball to take after
a stroke, plus a reasonable distance on either side of the intended direction.
The line of play extends vertically upwards from the ground, but does not
extend beyond the hole.

Hope this helps

Blox

Absolutely, I just didn't want to reproduce the whole thing.. The point is, it is a recommended wording and at Slow's course they may have taken the view that two club lengths is too far. But I think the majority of clubs just use the recommended wording.

My mistake. Two club lengths is correct.

anyone remember the ruling ernie els got at Augusta a few years back?
he was 30-40 yards off line with his drive. deep into the trees in a bad lie with loads of branches.
the ruling was that he was in GUR as the loose branches were piled for removal and he got a free drop

hend085 wrote:the overriding thing that i notice from these is that although pros and amateurs play under the same rules, the rules are applied quite differently in practise.... Rory getting a drop from a tree rather than hitting 3 off the tee ...

This may have been dealt with somewhere else, but are you saying there is something wrong with what McIlroy did? I was watching at the time and was convinced it was all above board. We have several trees/bushes at our club that are known to collect balls, and if yours gets stuck up there and you can identify it, then you can either try to play it or declare it unplayable in which case you use the point on the ground directly below the ball and take the usual unplayable procedure from there. Is that not right?

by the sounds of the article it implys he didnt actually identify it though this may be incorrect.
the els one i mention above (struggling to find an article about it) and the TW one certainly seem to be favouring the pros

hend085 wrote:by the sounds of the article it implys he didnt actually identify it though this may be incorrect.
the els one i mention above (struggling to find an article about it) and the TW one certainly seem to be favouring the pros

Ahh ok. I was watching it at the time and he definitely did identify it. The rotten branch it got stuck in was only at head height, so he reached in and lifted the ball out.

I think it's the fact that there are so many people and cameras around that help the pros, rather than the rules being applied differently.

EDIT: For those doubters amongst you LOOK HERE (skip to 2:20 )

I remember the Els one at Augusta, Hend. He was a lucky boy for sure. I'll post more about it when I get into the office.

I seem to remember that he was so far off track, that no one thought anyone would go there. When they did, the powers that be - in their embarrassment that a pile of twigs should be left to rot at Augusta of all places - stated that they clearly were for later removal and therefore a drop was awarded. Why they weren't removed, if that was the intention, before the biggest tournament of the Augusta year is the real mystery. As you say Grumps "a lucky boy" indeed.

heres a link

I remember that Els was starting to move the twigs, branches, trees etc and you could clearly see that the ball had moved. The Titleist logo became more prominent in the pictures. This was commented on at the time that he had caused the ball to move and he would need to be told about it. Then the Green Jacketed Blazer guy got involved and basically got him a free drop. The fact that the ball moved became irrelevant and he was able to play on without any penalty.