Rory not a baker

First topic message reminder :

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

bob.

No not clear at all. Rory has been able to play since the PGA champs, and therefore could have played 2 further events since then. So next time you miss a day of work through illness do you think your boss will let you skip a few more days when you return just because you couldn't be arsed?

If you come in for a really important meeting that you've been preparing for for ages, but are still not 100% better then yes, your boss will understand if you take more time off sick afterwards until you're completely recovered.

SmithersJones wrote:If you come in for a really important meeting that you've been preparing for for ages, but are still not 100% better then yes, your boss will understand if you take more time off sick afterwards until you're completely recovered.

Precisely.

This is all very well to speculate about but Kwini seemed to suggest he had read a more official source which confirmed Rory would be ok.

So I ask agian;

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.

Where is the PGAT press release stating that it is Ok that Rory will not play 15 events this year?

You asked originally for an explanation of how he could be presumed to have fulfilled his obligation, not a proof that this was the case. Help us to help you by not being quite such a pillock.

Mac,
Back in the dim and distant past, OK the seventies, a good friend and colleague worked thru her pregnancy, gave birth after being in the office earlier that day, and returned for a project meeting the following day.
I know that was Putney and not the PGA Tour but, by your distorted criteria, you'd've denied her maternity leave. Which, thank goodness, she took. Mostly.

Kwini

I am clearly just asking you to say whether or not you know for sure the PGAT are OK with Rory missing his 15 target and whether or not they will state under what rules he has been given dispensation. At the very least other players must be keen to know when they will be able to miss the 15 quota if not on a medical exemption.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:If you come in for a really important meeting that you've been preparing for for ages, but are still not 100% better then yes, your boss will understand if you take more time off sick afterwards until you're completely recovered.

Precisely.

Really? Let's see what happens to Joe Blow Also-Ran when he wants to play in the R2D having been injured and not able to complete his quota, a quota he would have done w/o the injury. If the same dispensation is handed to everyone in this sort of situation, fine. If not, it stinks. I suspect it'll be the latter when it happens but I hope to be surprised.

Mac,
Why should they care, any more than they care about Tim Clark's situation? He's already exempt and would clearly have fulfilled his obligation.

Kwini,

Making up my own rules?  Really?

IMO, Rory originally planned to play 15 PGATour events and only 15 PGATour events which included all four playoff events.  That is quite presumptive and risky schedule, even for a top ranked player like himself.   There is no contingency plan in case their is injury or sickness or death in the family etc.

IMO, Rory was only out for two PGAT events, (Open and B-Stone) so I can see the tour giving him a 13 tournament requirement because of his injury.  

But he said he was skipping the Barclays two weeks prior to the Barclays.  He said his ankle was 100% yet he still needed rest for it.  Give me a freakin' break.  Its entitlement because he Rory Freakin' McIlroy.  Five and half years ago there was another golfer who said he felt entitled and the rules did not apply to him

If I had two employers I'm not so sure employer A would give me leeway because I had to go work for employer B, eventhough I'd been ill. So that argument doesn't really hold.

Stenson in exactly the same boat GPB; you are presuming Rory is guilty when any evidence to the contrary is purely circumstantial, in the eye of the beholder.

As you say about your view of the situation: "IMO".

Kwini

But it is only your "IMO" which states the PGAT are ok with Rory failing to reach 15 events. I will ask for at least the 3rd time, what makes you think the PGAT are ok with this?

Mac,
No, it's not just my opinion. It's rehashing what's already been put in print regarding eligibility of other members.
There is no precedent for someone being denied proper recuperative time, and no precedent for assuming someone will fail to comply to criteria which, in normal circumstances, they would fulfil.

The Tour was apparently right to assume Stenson would comply, and they're surely right to assume McIlroy will.

pedro wrote:If I had two employers I'm not so sure employer A would give me leeway because I had to go work for employer B, eventhough I'd been ill. So that argument doesn't really hold.

Absolutely it does. If you agree with your two employers which weeks you'll be working for them, and they are both aware of one another and the fact that you have two jobs, it would be entirely unreasonable for one of them to insist you make up time that you were off sick (from both employers) by working for them at a time you had already made clear you'd be working for the other.

Will this be a test of the European Tour's consistency regarding eligibility for R2D?

Coetzee has broken his ankle, reckons he's going to be out for 8 - 12 wks. He's played more than the requisite tournaments so no issue here, but will the E.T. let him play in Dubai if he has to sit out the first couple of series events?? Mmmm.
Over to you Mr.Pelkey - it would be a good idea if you issued a policy statement sooner rather than later.

Sorry I'm so late to this thread... I missed it... but I'd like to add my 2 cents on several aspects of it...

Those that understand both the Tour's as businesses, have it EXACTLY correct. Tour Policies are promulgated for the BENEFIT of the Tour and its players. So let's get one thing straight... the Tour's are NOT just waiting around for someone to not meet the terms of some policy so they can "lower the hammer", instead it's in their interest to work WITH and FOR their members to make reasonable accommodation.

Now as for Rory... I am NOT as clear with the policies of the ET as I am the PGAT, but it was clear he was going to make his minimum on the ET if he had not had the injury. With the 9 events he already had, plus the 3 he missed due to injury, that's 12 right there, and the R2D final makes 13. And that's without him playing ANY other events between the Tour Championship and Dubai.

IMO it's entirely fair, and within the spirit of the 13 minimum policy, and within the spirit of an organization that exists to serve it's members, and just plain good business and common sense to give Rory the waiver.

Now on the PGAT side, I have a lot more direct knowledge as I have a pipeline into the very people who administer their member eligibility policies. And to that extent I have been told point blank that "player intent" is everything in their eyes.

Last year for example Thorbjorn Olesen was getting caught up in the PGAT 15 minimum rule. He had only 14 events on the books, with only the Wyndham left to play, but he had the requirement to play his "home country" event on the ET that same week. So the PGAT gave him a waiver of the 15 rule. And FAIRLY done IMO. As it turned out Olesen still hadn't done enough with his 14 to qualify for the next year, but he at least had the opportunity to earn back membership for the next year. Unlike Kaymer who has NO such opportunity.

Now look at Rory... I have little doubt that without the injury, he had every intention of making his 15. Yes he would have had to play all 4 in the playoffs... and IMO if not for the injury, there is little reason to doubt he would have. He played in all 4 in 2012... played in all 3 he was eligible for in 2013... and played in all 4 in 2014.

So knowing how the PGA Tour "thinks" on these kinds of things... they are very aware of the difficulties of dual touring, but they WANT the better players to come over and dual tour, it's in the PGAT's interest. And to that end, if they see a Rory "trying" to do what's right, they're gonna work with him. And I think he has tried... and thus I think they'll accommodate him missing his 15.

Now Kaymer's a different story. It was clear by late spring - early summer his FECup status could be in jeopardy.... and you can bet the tour knew it and "camp Kaymer" knew it. That's the point the Tour membership folks get involved to help ensure the player is aware of the potential membership issues looming. So you can BET Kaymer was aware of exactly what he had to do. But in his case, he probably bet on himself doing enough in the summers majors and WGC to get himself qualified, thus he didn't take on enough other events. Well, bad bet is all that was.... and it cost him.

And the PGA Tour actually works with it's home tour players like Reed and Koepka who are trying to dual tour the other way to Europe... and they HAVE to... if you look at the PGATs Competing Event Release (CER) policy, it is almost impossible for a Reed or Keopka to get enough releases to fulfill their ET commitment of 5 events beyond the 8 co-sanctions... and they really need help should they miss a co-sanction due to legibility or injury. So in that regard, the PGA Tour does have methods in which they can "waive" the 3 or 4 CER maximum to help these players. And as long as those players are working with the Tour's membership folks in "good faith", then they'll likely be accommodated. (at least to a point... no way would the PGAT issue enough CER's to a player to dual Tour unless he was eligible for most the co-sanctions)

Bottom line is this... Dual Touring is good for BOTH tours... The PGA Tour wants them to come over and play, and the ET doesn't want to make it too hard for them to do so or they risk losing the player to the PGAT entirely. But to make it happen, it takes a realization that sometimes these players are going to be "tight" in making the commitments to both tours... and even the loss of 2 or 3 events due to injury can be big issues. So they MUST have some flexibility in that regard to do what's best for the players... and best for their respective tours.