rules query

Hi,
Im unsure on how to deal with a plugged lie.
the definition "thru the green" is often used but im not sure how it should be applied.
yesterday Webb Simpson was plugged in the rough and got a free drop (on 17 i think). my understanding was that he would have to play it as it lies. is there a pga tour rule to cover this specifically maybe?

Can't remember the exact wording, but rough plug in winter at our place is a drop. Think through the green is the wording used to cover it and believe it means anywhere on the course other than tee boxes (I guess of the hole you are playing), greens or hazards.

Drop in the rough for a plugged lie is covered in local rules

Indeed - You only get a free drop if its on a closely mown area of the course, thru the green, unless its been specified in local rules.

Just try telling someone they cant have a free drop for a plugged ball in the rough though .. total nightmare. And then they insist on 'rolling' the ball out. Where the hell did that come from !

hend085 wrote:yesterday Webb Simpson was plugged in the rough  and got a free drop (on 17 i think).

I'm probably wrong but I thought it wasn't a free drop? As far as I understood he drove it in to the bunker, then took a penalty drop. Then he hit the green with his third and holed a long one for par.

I thought he thinned it from the bunker into the edge of the bunker where it plugged, not in sand but in the earth at the edge?

MontysMerkin wrote:I thought he thinned it from the bunker into the edge of the bunker where it plugged, not in sand but in the earth at the edge?

yeah he thinned it into the face with his second.

so how closely mown does it have to be?! if i'm in the 3foot think stuff do i get the same treatment compared to a couple of feet from the fairway?

hend085 wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:I thought he thinned it from the bunker into the edge of the bunker where it plugged, not in sand but in the earth at the edge?

yeah he thinned it into the face with his second.

so how closely mown does it have to be?! if i'm in the 3foot think stuff do i get the same treatment compared to a couple of feet from the fairway?

No cause you're in the rough, " through the green" is s capture all saying for closely mown areas such as green, fringe, fairway, tee boxes etc, the first cut it rough is where that ends

It's not a free drop in the rough normally but I've read somewhere before that the PGA tour (not sure on ET) have a 'local' rule in all events where all plugs get a free drop. I guess it's not good tv to have them hacking it out of plugged lies.

No free drop for you and I though

Depends on the local rule I think. Once played a Scratch match at a notoriously wet course and there was preferred lies in the first cut, not just for a plugged ball either.

Had a look on randa.org and "Through the green" is defined as any part of the course except the teeing ground and green of the hole being played and hazards. So Through the green does include the rough.

Rule 25-2 relates to embedded balls

A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green. “Closely-mown area” means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

So in normal play, plugs in rough = tough. However, in the FAQ relating to that rule it stipulates that there can be a local rule adopted to permit relief from an embedded ball anywhere "through the green" (so in the rough too) check the local rules. We adopt this rule in winter (although I always thought that if you are in the rough you weren't allowed to clean before dropping so may have been mistaken on that!)

Question of my own. When playing preferred lies (and hitting a fairway...), do you have to pick, clean then drop a plugged ball first before lifting and placing?

Depends on the local rule I think. Once played a Scratch match at a notoriously wet course and there was preferred lies in the first cut, not just for a plugged ball either.

gawd , winter is coming isnt it !

Bit depressing isn't it...

Still - sunny majorca for golf trip next week.

Then it's winter golf psychologically.

thanks for the help guys.

so in summary, the pros get preferential treatment again....

But not if the ball had stayed in the "hazard". It must have been a VERY close call, perhaps a quick prayer answered for Webb?

to me it actually seemed like he dropped it closer the hole

If it had happened at the Barclays he would have to had played it or taken unplayable. I overheard Dufner and Westwood going over the local rules while they waited on the tee box on 9. Westwood later plugged in the lip/face of a bunker on 12 and had to chop out sideways.

Roller - yes is the answer to your question. At least at our place

Ok, here's one I don't get. The PGA Tour website is reporting that Stenson left his 4 wood in the locker after its face cracked on the practice ground, after he'd hit it a couple of times. They suggest that if he'd left it in the bag it would have cost him 4 shots and if he'd hit it he'd have been dq'd. Now as far as I can ascertain, that would only have been the case if the damage had either happened during the course of the round through abuse, like his driver last week. There's even a clause that specifically permits the use of a club damaged prior to a round, so long as it still conforms to the rules. Any ideas?

They are saying that the club was non conforming because of the damage. I have no idea why that would be, but that's the story.

It won't make much difference anyway. Stenson is a human volcano who will manage to self combust at some point in the next two days. He smashed his driver and then his locker last week. Golf doesn't need people like him.

Sounds like PGA website must be wrong unless they're suggesting it couldn't be conforming once damaged?

George1507 wrote:They are saying that the club was non conforming because of the damage. I have no idea why that would be, but that's the story.

It won't make much difference anyway. Stenson is a human volcano who will manage to self combust at some point in the next two days. He smashed his driver and then his locker last week. Golf doesn't need people like him.

Oh? I assume you feel the same about TW then?

I don't like Tiger either. He's not a good role model for anyone.

I've never understood the "role model" position. He like every other golfer plays the game for himself. He isn't there to set an example, raise your kids or provide someone to look up to.

What does surprise me is that the default position for a human being is to be a decent, polite and considerate person. How hard can it be for everyone to be like that?

Why should tiger be a role model? Only to his kids anyway. He us a pro golfer, people that treat him as a role model are misguided.

No one's saying he should be a role model or chose to be a role model. But the fact remains that he is a role model and not a very good one in a conduct context. In a purely sporting context, as in desire to win, to improve, he is about the best role model you will find

Why are people that treat him as a role model misguided anyway??!

Simply by being a top sportsman does not make you a role model automatically.

You are a role model if you behave like someone people want to aspire to be. Woods, for all his great golf, simply isn't a role model. He perhaps should be, but because he isn't a decent person, isn't. Simply because he perhaps "should be" doesn't mean he "is".

Anyway, whoever thought sports people are worthy of being a role model?
"he's a role model because he's good at putting a ball in a hole and he's on the tv a lot"
What sort of crazy criteria is that.

The moment golfers accept money for advertising clubs, balls, cars, shirts - or anything - then they become role models. You can't take the money without having at least a standard of behaviour which most people would regard as acceptable.

If Woods' behaviour, demeanour and lifestyle were acceptable then he wouldn't have lost sponsors when he was popping waitresses and spitting and snarling his way round the course.

If he loses sponsors then he isn't regarded as a role model - or good example - any more. If he doesn't want to be a role model then he should step away from sponsorship deals.

You seem to be mistaking making money for being a role model. Just because someone advertises something it doesn't make them a role model. Is iggy pop a role model is john lydon? Neither should be but because they advertise you think they are? Anyway to have a complete stranger as a role model is daft.

Aren't you both half right?
Surely you're a role model for the product the sponsor uses you to advertise??
Nike sees Tiger, for instance, as a role model for its market segment and presumably think his negative characteristics are a positive to their target audience. And, let's face it, it's making them a ton of money, regardless of what it says about the people that are attracted by all that Tiger represents.

beninho wrote:You seem to be mistaking making money for being a role model.  Just because someone advertises something it doesn't make them a role model. Is iggy pop a role model is john lydon? Neither should be but because they advertise you think they are? Anyway to have a complete stranger as a role model is daft.

Sponsorship and advertising are different things. Nike using Tiger to promote their golf stuff is essentially saying - "get these clubs and be like Tiger".

Using someone controversial in an advert is a tried and tested way of getting some attention.

Think it's a very interesting topic. Super obviously thinks baldy 9 chins is a complete naughty naughty boy. I however would not have really ever thought about golf without tw. But is he a role model? As a golfer? Yes. Best ever (well, for my generation. Have to watch shells wonderful world to see Nicklaus Palmer Trevino et al. And it's a different game) as a bloke? Not to me. But i dont know him. Apparently he has a fookin great time off the course...But he takes money for projecting that image. Is it right? Old fashioned view I'm afraid. Banks, utilities, politicians, big bis all taking the urine. What makes him so special?

Some seem to be forgetting that just because someone is described as a role model (whether by choice or not) that doesn't mean they're some kind of surrogate dad?! Just because some kid sees Tiger as a role model doesn't mean his parents are crap. There are many roles in life and Tiger can be a sporting role model quite legitimately, and he is to millions whether he likes it or not. That kids dad can also be his 'character' role model. Or do we think you're only allowed one role model?!

George1507 wrote:The moment golfers accept money for advertising clubs, balls, cars, shirts - or anything - then they become role models. You can't take the money without having at least a standard of behaviour which most people would regard as acceptable.

If Woods' behaviour, demeanour and lifestyle were acceptable then he wouldn't have lost sponsors when he was popping waitresses and spitting and snarling his way round the course.

If he loses sponsors then he isn't regarded as a role model - or good example - any more. If he doesn't want to be a role model then he should step away from sponsorship deals.  

Take away the waitresses and Nine Chins is still the loathesome, wretched presence on the golf course he always was.
Sponsors don't care if he's cursing, swearing, has a poor demeanour, chucking clubs, etc etc. They just pay him the money because for some unfathomable reason people like him and want to use the same crappy, uninspiring gear and clothing that he wears. That isn't being a role model, it's being iconic.

People like George Best, Ashley Cole, John Terry etc are dripping in endorsements, but no one in their right mind would look up to any of them.
Isn't it a bit sad to have a role model anyway?

If I or you were top sportsmen, I don't think we'd be clamouring to be seen as role models, I certainly wouldn't. I'd just try to be a decent person, and you can't ask for more than that.

I don't think its sad to have a role model.
I don't have one but I'm not really young enough for that.

If a kid were to look at Tiger and say 'in my role as a golfer I would like to be play like him', what's wrong with that.

As I say, there are many roles in life and it's quite plausible to have Tiger as a golfing role model without necessary wanting to be the guy full stop. He fulfills the golfing role model position in many peoples lives

I can see why people might want to win as frequently as him, he does that in PGA events better than anyone, albeit not in majors anymore it would seem, but there are players with far better techniques and other attributes which young players would be better emulating.

Obviously everyone want to win as often as possible, you don't need a role model for that.

I'm not saying he is the perfect person to want to be. All I'm saying is you can want to be a golfer in his mould without wanting to actually be the guy in the whole. Which negates the whole, it's sad to have Tiger as a role model, where are there parents...thing

Don't you think you should be able to take traits deemed admirable from everyone without actually needing to "look up to them" or seeing them as a "role model" or "wanting to be like them"

All I've ever seen that is admirable to take from Nine Chins is/was his ability to win, and the mental edge he had circa 2005 (a very long time ago) there are better drivers, long iron players, putters, chippers, bunker players, and nicer, more reliable swings all over the place.
I don't think there is anything individual thing he does which is better than a host of other players.

I agree but a lot of people look at his game and think 'I want to play golf like him'. Whether they admit it or not he is therefore a role model to them. They want to model him in that role

I don't see anything negative in that

I think a lot of people probably think "I wish I was as good" without necessarily meaning they want to play golf "like" him.

I'd love to be as good as him, but I'd like it to individual and not some ghastly facsimile.

for instance, I'd love to have as few putts and be able to hole out  as well as Faxon, Drive the ball as consistently as Westwood (at least when he's on song), Strike the ball as cleanly as Garcia, Chip as well as Poulter etc etc, but I wouldn't want to do any of it "like" any of them, so I don't see them as role models, rather I'd rather have their stats more than to do stuff in the same way they do it.

I've always thought it more satisfying to find your own way to do things, rather than trying to emulate someone you are nothing like and who has a completely different skillset to you.

I see what you're saying and I would agree that you don't hold any of them as role models.
But I'm afraid to say I think there are a great number of people who, whilst not wanting to be like him on a personality front, basically want to be a replica of him on the course. Hence Nike selling tonnes of even their poo clubs and shirts etc

Fair enough.
Clothing is the ironic thing though in this equation as Woods is one of the least stylish guys on tour and Nike are still in 2005 style wise.

I understand that younger people are impressionable, but I'd rather be a tactical sniper than a gung ho GI with a Gatling Gun, which is how I see Nine Chins.

Ha ha, like the comparisons. Wouldn't mind being Stenson later this evening

MustPuttBetter wrote:I see what you're saying and I would agree that you don't hold any of them as role models.
But I'm afraid to say I think there are a great number of people who, whilst not wanting to be like him on a personality front, basically want to be a replica of him on the course. Hence Nike selling tonnes of even their poo clubs and shirts etc

Ever hit a Nike club, or do you just assume they're sh1t? I tried all manner of irons when buying my last set, and their pro combos offered as good a feel as anything else I tried. I hit all of the Mizunos, the Titleist 712s and some others that I've forgotten, and the Nikes were my favourites. I'm no fan of Woods', far from it, but the clubs aren't Poopie and I'm sure his influence has something to do with that.

a) I didn't say all of their clubs were poo, I said they manage to sell tonnes, even the poo ones
b) yes, of course I have hit a nike golf club?!?!!, I had a Nike Sasquatch driver for a year and yes I thought it was crap

Sports people as role models?

Why, on Earth, would people assume that someone who has (usually) sacrificed education etc on the altar of sporting endeavour would be a worthy role model? Ridiculous. The fact that any sports people are worth looking up to in any sphere except their own sporting achievements should perhaps be surprising.

Navy, this is what I've been trying to say. Why do people assume that because someone is described as a role model it means people want to be them 100%. They're sporting role models, no more. I've never heard anyone say they want Tiger's education or his morals. He's a golfing role model

MustPuttBetter wrote:a) I didn't say all of their clubs were poo, I said they manage to sell tonnes, even the poo ones
b) yes, of course I have hit a nike golf club?!?!!, I had a Nike Sasquatch driver for a year and yes I thought it was crap

Don't all manufacturers do that? And why did you buy a club you thought was crap?