Rory not a baker

The European Tour have given Rory a break in that he doesn't have to complete the minimum 13 tournaments in order to qualify for the R2D.
European Tour story CLICK HERE

How many of the remaining fedex play offs does he plan to play?

The final 2 are up against the Italian open and European open.


So what events will he play to get up to 12?

Dunhill Links, British Masters and Hong Kong Open? Although he could play in Portugal to save him travelling half way around the world and then come back to Turkey.

But didn't someone post that he had a committment to play in the Fry's? That would rule out Portugal

Hmmm. Something smells. I wonder how much latitude Mr. Journeyman Pro would have if he'd had a similar injury?

You mean the injury that everyone expected to keep him out until the new year - but miraculously healed in time for Whistling Straits? Given that sort of recovery I'd expect him to play every week now till year end to fulfill his commitments

Why would they not give the world no.1 special treatment? It's his home tour and the benefit to the tour of him being in the flagship events is immeasurable.

SmithersJones wrote:Why would they not give the world no.1 special treatment? It's his home tour and the benefit to the tour of him being in the flagship events is immeasurable.

Why not?? Given the way it seems is the norm for society to operate these days? Actually, obviously not a problem. Let the "stars" have a favourable, easy ride.
To be fair to the Tour, I'm assuming the worst but I should probably wait until someone lower down the ranks is looking for the same favour re. the R2D. If they treat him any different to McIlroy, then I think they're pretty contemptible.

It's not like medical exemptions are unheard of though is it?

My point is that the tour is a business, and if they didn't allow Rory to play in the high profile end of season events even though he's leading the RTD they'd a) look a bit silly and b)be losing a lot of money.

As I said this stinks! If he wanted to fulfil his ET obligations he could. He just wants to have the best of all worlds and the ET provided it.

As an example: Why the lengthy break after Whistling Straits? What's wrong with the Denmark and Czech tourneys? Hell, the guy plays even less than Balotelli did! Even Tiger showed up at Wyndham trying to get into the playoffs.

What if someones grandma or guinea pig died and they had to take time off? Anyone should leave himself enough leeway to miss 3 tourneys as he did. It's not like 13 tourneys is such a heartache in the first place when 11 of those are majors/wgc's/your home tourney/the final series (min 2?). The year still has 52 weeks?

And who cares if he has committed to frys.com or fries.com. The ET already tweaked the rules two years ago to appease some of the double dippers, but this is just plain corrupt and shows such lack of integrity one should think FIFA somehow was involved.

Do I understand why the ET does it? Yes. Do I applaud it? No!

I don't think it stinks at all. The guy would have met his 13 events were it not for the injury he picked up, agreed? He will play 12 (so all of one short) and would definitely have played the Open and Scottish Open, events pulled out of directly as a result of injury.

Surely the 13 event rule is to stop people taking the mick out of the tour and not committing to enough events. This is not what's happened here

Of course he had an injury. But everyone does. If he wanted to play 13 he could. This is double standards and would never have happened to Andrew Dodt or Trevor Fisher.

But this isn't a situation where you've got a guy saying 'I'm not going to play enough events but I want to be in the final shake up'. He was always going to play enough events, and would have without question were it not for injury. That's indisputable

pedro wrote:As an example: Why the lengthy break after Whistling Straits? What's wrong with the Denmark and Czech tourneys?

Same thing that was wrong with the Barclays, presumably. He is still recovering, it doesn't take a genius to work out that if Whistling Straits wasn't a major he wouldn't have played there either.

Anyone should leave himself enough leeway to miss 3 tourneys as he did. It's not like 13 tourneys is such a heartache in the first place when 11 of those are majors/wgc's/your home tourney/the final series (min 2?). The year still has 52 weeks?

Leeway to miss 3 tournaments? Are you nuts? Perhaps you think he should enter every tournament just in case a volcano erupts and he can't fly? The ET year has nothing like 52 weeks and he missed a major and a wgc. You seem to be forgetting that he has to fulfill PGA tour quotas too.

And who cares if he has committed to frys.com or fries.com. The ET already tweaked the rules two years ago to appease some of the double dippers, but this is just plain corrupt and shows such lack of integrity one should think FIFA somehow was involved.

So he should rob Peter to pay Paul? Nonsense. As for the corruption comment, talk about storm in a teacup - it's not like anybody's going to be worse off as a result of this decision - the qualification for the final series is based on the OOM, which he leads.

Do I understand why the ET does it? Yes. Do I applaud it? No!

The absence of such a high profile player in those events would be unforgivable to many key sponsors given the circumstances which have led him to fall 1 tournament short. That would hurt the body of players on the tour in the medium to long term, so I think you should applaud it.

It's a sensible decision from the E.T.
No different from the criteria for the PGA Tour's FedEx Play-Offs; he's only played 9 events so far but still eligible.
Hope he wins both.

SJ,
The 52 week comment is just to say that there enough time in a year to relax and have breaks, and still fulfill ET and PGAT obligations.

The ET should't care about the PGAT quotas. That's one of my main points. Why isn't it the other way around? Either the ET has a set of rules or it doesn't.

'Corrupt' may be a harsh word -- but you said it yourself, money talks.

kwinigolfer wrote:
No different from the criteria for the PGA Tour's FedEx Play-Offs; he's only played 9 events so far but still eligible.

No comprende? Did he get dispensation here as well?

No; his absence would have earned him a medical extension if he wasn't already exempt.
Agree that the E.T. shouldn't be guided by "PGAT quotas", but it does suggest that he might have received a medical exemption if he needed it from the E.T.

FWIW, Rory is going to fall three tournaments short of fulfilling his PGATour quota.

and he only missed two tournaments, (three if you include the Barclays, which I don't)

He obviously thought he was going to cruise to the Tour Champ when he planned out his 2014-15 schedule to get his 15 tournaments.

IMO, the PGATour should "Kaymer" him off the PGATour.  At the very least, this is his one Mulligan.  Rules are Rules, and a top ranked player should not get special treatment.

Now replace Rory with Tiger.

Replace ET with PGATour.

I don't think you have this discussion.

SetupDeterminesTheMotion wrote:Now replace Rory with Tiger.

Replace ET with PGATour.

I don't think you have this discussion.

Wrong. We'll always have this discussion. It's what we do (and sometimes the very predictability of it is astonishing).

The tours are businesses, and they set out the rules and can bend or even break them if they feel it's in the best interests of the business. Clearly keeping the world number 1 involved was deemed to fall into that category, whereas keeping a journeyman pro involved wouldn't. This is just the litmus test of common sense. Tour rules are not the laws of the land and shouldn't be measured against or compared to them. Letting a high profile politician away with a crime? Reprehensible. Letting the world number 1 play a game of golf? Meh.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

SetupDeterminesTheMotion wrote:Now replace Rory with Tiger.

Replace ET with PGATour.

I don't think you have this discussion.

Wrong.  We'll always have this discussion.  It's what we do (and sometimes the very predictability of it is astonishing).

The tours are businesses, and they set out the rules and can bend or even break them if they feel it's in the best interests of the business.  Clearly keeping the world number 1 involved was deemed to fall into that category, whereas keeping a journeyman pro involved wouldn't.  This is just the litmus test of common sense.    Tour rules are not the laws of the land and shouldn't be measured against or compared to them.  Letting a high profile politician away with a crime? Reprehensible.  Letting the world number 1 play a game of golf? Meh.

Rory not a baker?

What does that mean?

George1507 wrote:Rory not a baker?

What does that mean?

Playing 12 not 13 (a baker's dozen)

Oh, right, thank you. Didn't realise this board had turned into Only Connect.

Reference to baker's dozen I assume.

I get it, it's a business, and more than that, it's entertainment and we the fans want to see Rory. I certainly want to see him in the mix at the climax of the season.

However, the Tour does need to be careful here because it sets a precedent. If a journeyman pro finds himself in the same position next year he will expect, and be entitled to, the same treatment, especially if his livelihood is on the line. Otherwise it will end up in court.

raycastleunited wrote:Reference to baker's dozen I assume.

I get it, it's a business, and more than that, it's entertainment and we the fans want to see Rory. I certainly want to see him in the mix at the climax of the season.

However, the Tour does need to be careful here because it sets a precedent. If a journeyman pro finds himself in the same position next year he will expect, and be entitled to, the same treatment, especially if his livelihood is on the line. Otherwise it will end up in court.

What makes anyone think that a double standard is in play here? Are there previous incidences where players with genuine injuries have been denied entry to the final series or equivalent?

I just don't see the problem.
The purpose of the 13 event rule is surely to stop people who make no commitment to the European Tour from taking a share of the spoils. Would anyone try and say that Rory hasn't shown a commitment to the tour? Were it not for injury he had set his schedule such that he would have played the requisite number of events.

Anyway as for the 'preferential treatment' argument -

"Hey Rory,  we want you to use your special status in golf to do us a favour and host the Irish Open and get some of the worlds best to play here"

"Hey Rory, don't think we can do you a favour re only playing 12 events just because you have special status in golf"

Hmm

GPB

I agree, we are in the ludicrous situation where Rory could walk away (or should that be limp away?) with the fedex jackpot or R2D jackpot while on some sort of quasi medical exemption, while not having met his playing criteria.


I assume other players who can only tee it up once every three weeks due to injury just have to bench themselves until they regain full fitness, and take a medical exemption if the problem persists.

mustputt

I would hope the Rory would not use the Irish open as a bargaining tool in order to excuse himself from having to follow the same rules as everyone else. If he is of an ethical nature he would accept he broke the rules and continue to support the Irish open.

No I don't know of any similar incidences, I don't follow the tours as closely or have the encyclopaedic knowledge like some of our resident experts.

It feels that, although Rory's original intention was to meet both tours' requirements, he's not altering his schedule to try to make up the numbers. However, both tours could argue that he has skipped opportunities to play in tournaments to fulfil his obligations. Eg he could have played Denmark, Czech, Russia, Holland, Italy.

The only precedent that has been set, is that the person at top of the RTD standings, is being given some leeway in the amount of tournaments he needs to play, due to an injury. I would assume that if any other player was in exactly the same position, there would be no reason to not do it again.

Mac  a) I'm not saying he would use the Irish Open as a bargaining tool, I'm putting it forward to make a point that in real life you can't have it both ways. You can't use him and his status but at the same time say his status should be ignored in decisions like this b) he hasn't 'excused himself from having to follow the same rules as everyone else'. He got injured

I should add that I would like to think any other golfer in the same position (ie can undeniably show they would have met the events criteria were it not for injury) would also get the same negotiated treatment

Ray wrote:It feels that, although Rory's original intention was to meet both tours' requirements, he's not altering his schedule to try to make up the numbers

Isn't this the main point? Why since returning has he continued to skip events and make no effort to make up for lost time.

He could have easily played the WGC for example and got a tick in both tours for events played. Even if he had coasted on thursday and friday he would have an extra event played on both tours.

McLaren wrote:Why since returning has he continued to skip events and make no effort to make up for lost time.

Because he's injured.....

He is so seriously injured that he can run up and down sand dunes for 4 days straight.

Can he? When did he do that?

McLaren wrote:He is so seriously injured that he can run up and down sand dunes for 4 days straight.

So your problem is not with the tour giving him an exemption, more with his honesty about the state of his injury?

We can only deal in facts. The only fact is the tour has given him an exemption. I don't think anyone on this board is well enough informed or medically experienced to make a call on the state of his injury. Especially if it's to call into doubt the integrity of a player.

GPB is making his own rules!

Seems Rory's only "crime" is to get injured and then try to play again, which would surely be to the advantage of both Tours and sets of fans.

Perhaps the E.T. might be wise to remove any ambiguity from the "exception" made for Rory so that it is crystal clear that it could have applied to others, but otherwise I don't see the fuss.

Who wouldn't fake an injury to miss the Open? No one wants to play in that anyway right?

I think Rory should have to prove the state of his injury to this board with a Westwood style public display of ankle swelling / loss of mobility / pain etc.

Rory would have to be seriously injured to suffer a westwood level of loss of mobility.

Running up the dunes = Whistling Straits.
Rory rounded up a top 10 there. Not bad if you're handicapped.
Btw, After and during the tourney he said he didn't feel any pain and was 100%....hmmm. Tiger'esque BS perhaps?

But the main point is he didn't make an effort to alter his schedule.

And what is "committing to the ET"? As far as I know you can sign up for all tourneys (where you're eligable) and then just withdraw a few days before with no reason. That leaves room for misuse. When the RTD final series criteria were tweaked a few years ago it was to appease players such as Garcia (as far as I remember). You can't say he hasn't committed to the ET, eg by hosting his own tourney.

Running up the dunes = Whistling Straits?
What, in the same way that you 'run around' your course at the weekend?? Sure!
I think gently walking , with a lot of standing around, carrying nothing, might be more accurate.
And yes agreed, not bad if you're handicapped.

Re what is committing to the ET? Playing 13 events, as set out by the ET to be enough of a commitment to keep your card. Yes you can withdraw from events, but he's going to play 12. He missed the Open and the Scottish Open. Are you thinking he was planning on withdrawing from them for a laugh? If not, it is a fact that he would have played 13 were it not for injury.

I suppose what would have been more sensible is if he'd played the WGC etc, not bothered resting the ankle, re-injured it, and then not be able to play the season's end anyway and we'd have no issue. Hmm

Does anyone know if the PGAT have made any comments about Rory failing to meet his minimum requirements?

Do we know he will actually get away with failing to play 15 events or has he had to ask for a medical exemption from the PGAT?

Mac,
Rory doesn't need a medical exemption as he's already exempt.

He would clearly, or just as clearly as Stenson anyway, have fulfilled the requisite 15 events if he hadn't been injured, so no issue.

How can he be exempt if he fails to play his 15 events?

Because he can be presumed to have fulfilled his obligation, regardless of what GPB says.

kwinigolfer wrote:Because he can be presumed to have fulfilled his obligation, regardless of what GPB says.

Kwini, I don't follow these things as closely as you and I doubt many others on here do. You might have to explain this in very simple terms as it would appear he is short of 15 and therefore cannot be presumed to have fulfilled his obligation. As I said, it seems clear he has failed to meet his obligation.

McLaren wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Because he can be presumed to have fulfilled his obligation, regardless of what GPB says.

Kwini, I don't follow these things as closely as you and I doubt many others on here do.  You might have to explain this in very simple terms as it would appear he is short of 15 and therefore cannot be presumed to have fulfilled his obligation. As I said, it seems clear he has failed to meet his obligation.

You asked for simple..

Ok, let's pretend you're employable and have a job. You've an obligation to be there 5 days a week, but on Wednesday you come down with the flu and call in sick. Your employer says that's ok, these things can't be helped, and you don't get sacked and in fact you get paid anyway. Clearer?