Speaking of bending the rules...

[JPsuff]

.

Here's a situation that I consider "fair" and not a true "rule breaker" even though it technically is according to the venerable "Rules of Golf":

I hit a shot into a fairway bunker on a short par four hole. The bunker sits about a hundred yards or so from the green, so it's not unreasonable to assume that I could reach that green on my next shot.

When I arrive at my ball, I find that it is resting at the bottom of depression which was obviously created by someone's heel; I am now looking at was is essentially a buried lie from which I cannot advance the ball more than a few yards and this deprives me of an opportunity to reach the green on my next shot. Now I can't recall ever playing with anyone who would not say, "Move it out, you shouldn't have to hit from someone's footprint".
Of course, the Rules Of Golf would assess me about a million penalty strokes for doing that, but I believe that moving the ball is fair and more than satisfies the concept of "equity" which is so often referred to in those rules.

Here's why:

Most (if not all) golf courses have policies regarding the raking of sand traps. They generally post a fair amount of signage admonishing players to rake the trap smooth after they've hit their shot. They also provide implements with which we can easily accomplish the task. Since this is the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that if I hit a ball into a bunker, the only marks in that bunker should be only those that are created by the arrival and subsequent actions of my golf ball. So If I land in someone's heel print, I should not have to be penalized for someone else's laziness - especially when the course policy is for people to clean up after themselves and that they supply tools to help them do so.

Ah! But the Rules People will say that that's the "rub of the green" but I believe that it is not. They might cite that landing in a divot is no different. But that's not true. A divot cannot be repaired to pristine condition on the spot and must take days to properly heal over so it is a common occurence and is beyond the power of the person who created the divot to return that area to its original condition. But sand can be returned to pristine condition in a matter of seconds - especially when the course provides the means with which to do so.

So in the sense of fairness and equity, I agree with the person who suggested that I move the ball.

There are two possible solutions to the problem from a rules point of view.

1. Agree that it is unfair for someone to have to deal with a footprint if the policies of the venue stipulate the repair of such damage and that insisting that one play from such a lie, especially when such a lie was easily preventable and that an allowance for a penalty-free re-placement of the ball is in order.

OR...


2. Acknowledge that all bunkers are hazards and that no provisions for the maintenance of them either by golf course personel or by users of the facility is supplied or suggested; that footprints, debris, dead animals and the like are inherent properties of the hazard - an "Act of God", if you will and that no allowance for improving one's lie is permitted.

Either one would be fine by me. But I simply cannot accept the fact that because someone else was too lazy to pick up a rake and smooth the sand after they messed it up, especially since the course policy is that the repair of such conditions is required, that I should have to deal with the consequences. Now there are those who may say that I shouldn't have hit the ball there in the first place. As debatable as that may be, if the policy is to rake the bunkers after use and the tools to do so are provided by the course, then neither I nor anyone else should be essentially penalized with a poor lie simply because of someone else's negligence.


Opinions?



-JP

[cosine]

Yeah. Hit it where it came to rest. That what sez the Rules, and you ain't gonna damage your club in the sand. That's how I play situations like that.

[pick-it-up]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.
Opinions?

Make a note of the shoe and size of the footprint. Track the person down and beat him silly with a rake.

[HackBlack]

In a tourney or playing for $$$, play it as it lies.
Casual round: hit out of the footprint. The drop another and hit from a good lie. Then do what 'pick-it-up' said.

[Fourputt]

As is often said, the Rules aren't there to be fair, they are there to define the parameters by which we play the game. This time it happens to you... maybe you lose a skin. Next time maybe it happens to your buddy, he loses a skin... These things generally even out in the long run. We all deal with it. I play it as it lies regardless of whether it's a tournament or not. That is just how I approach the game. I can't measure my performance if I don't play by the same rules every time. Bad lies are a part of golf, and sometimes there is no escape... I have sympathy for you because I've been there, but otherwise....

I just choose to play by the Rules all the time so that I don't have to change my approach when it counts. That's my choice... your choice may be different.

[tmtp]

I tend to lean more towards Fourputt's reasoning, I play by the rules at all times, even if it seems like an unfair rule at the time. I also know that there are times where knowing the rules will help me out of a tough situation.

[JPsuff]

.


I agree and I'll even go on to say that I've had situations where a footprint actually helped, so it evens out over time.

What bugs me is that we hear about rules from the Tour all the time, but in the case of footprints, I don't think that anyone playing in a PGA Tour event will ever encounter that situation. And if they did, there would likely be a half-hour delay while they discuss what to do and afterwards the caddie who didn't rake the trap would be publicly flogged.

The "Tour" rules don't always jive with "Our" rules.

For instance, let's say I hit a blind shot straight over a crest in a straight fairway and when I arrive at where I think my ball ought to be I can't find it because unbeknownst to me it struck a stick and caromed off into the rough. If I can't find it, I'll have to declare it lost and go back to the tee and hit another ball with a penalty stroke attached.

On Tour, that would never happen because they either have forecaddies whose sole purpose in life is to put little flags next to wayward balls to let the player know where it landed, or there are simply a gaggle of spectators who rush to surround it.

I don't have any such luxuries.

So where's the "equity" they're so fond of referring to at the USGA?


-JP

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.


I agree and I'll even go on to say that I've had situations where a footprint actually helped, so it evens out over time.

What bugs me is that we hear about rules from the Tour all the time, but in the case of footprints, I don't think that anyone playing in a PGA Tour event will ever encounter that situation. And if they did, there would likely be a half-hour delay while they discuss what to do and afterwards the caddie who didn't rake the trap would be publicly flogged.

The "Tour" rules don't always jive with "Our" rules.

For instance, let's say I hit a blind shot straight over a crest in a straight fairway and when I arrive at where I think my ball ought to be I can't find it because unbeknownst to me it struck a stick and caromed off into the rough. If I can't find it, I'll have to declare it lost and go back to the tee and hit another ball with a penalty stroke attached.

On Tour, that would never happen because they either have forecaddies whose sole purpose in life is to put little flags next to wayward balls to let the player know where it landed, or there are simply a gaggle of spectators who rush to surround it.

I don't have any such luxuries.

So where's the "equity" they're so fond of referring to at the USGA?


-JP

"Equity" under the rules does not mean what you imply it means, and it surely does not mean you will be treated as a pgatour may be treated.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.


I agree and I'll even go on to say that I've had situations where a footprint actually helped, so it evens out over time.

What bugs me is that we hear about rules from the Tour all the time, but in the case of footprints, I don't think that anyone playing in a PGA Tour event will ever encounter that situation. And if they did, there would likely be a half-hour delay while they discuss what to do and afterwards the caddie who didn't rake the trap would be publicly flogged.

The "Tour" rules don't always jive with "Our" rules.

For instance, let's say I hit a blind shot straight over a crest in a straight fairway and when I arrive at where I think my ball ought to be I can't find it because unbeknownst to me it struck a stick and caromed off into the rough. If I can't find it, I'll have to declare it lost and go back to the tee and hit another ball with a penalty stroke attached.

On Tour, that would never happen because they either have forecaddies whose sole purpose in life is to put little flags next to wayward balls to let the player know where it landed, or there are simply a gaggle of spectators who rush to surround it.

I don't have any such luxuries.

So where's the "equity" they're so fond of referring to at the USGA?


-JP

Equity does not mean equality. It means that similar treatment should be applied to similar situations if not specifically defined in the Rules of Golf. A modern Pro playing in a tournament is not the same situation as you and me playing a round at the local club. There are people to spot their balls, and they get great bounces off people in the gallery, all sorts of things that you and I will never see. If Tiger and Phil were playing a casual round together at the same club as you and I, they would, in theory, face the same problems we would.

From the USGA website:

What is "Equity?"

Q. What does the term "Equity" mean as used in the Rules of Golf?

A. Equity means to treat like situations alike. Some situations are not covered by the Rules of Golf, thus the decision must be made according to what is fair under the Rules of Golf. Equity is not a substitute for a Rule.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Equity means to treat like situations alike. Some situations are not covered by the Rules of Golf, thus the decision must be made according to what is fair under the Rules of Golf. Equity is not a substitute for a Rule.

OK, so how is it "fair" that when Tiger hits a ball over a clubhouse and it comes to rest in the parking lot near the front door to that clubhouse, he ends up with a free drop and a clean line of sight to the green?

That particular "ruling" was claimed to be fair because between the clubhouse and his ball, there was a grandstand, which is a "Temporary Immovable Obstruction" and if the clubhouse were not there, then that grandstand would be and as such Tiger was entitled to line of sight relief and no penalty.

Now, the "Letter of the Law" crowd might be able to defend that, but the clubhouse - the brick and mortar permanent structure was between him and the green. Since his ball was resting near the front door of that building, it isn't reasonable to assume that he could have hit a shot over a three-story building that he was mere feet away from. Since he couldn't advance the ball beyond the primary obstacle, then any other obstacles beyond it are irrelevant.

What's more, is that if someone had the exact same situation the week following the tournament, there would be no grandstand and there would be no penalty-free relief.
You know as well as I do that if you or I attempted to claim relief in that situation we'd be laughed off the fairway.

So how does a ruling such as that address the issue of fairness?


The purpose of all of my examples is to point out that rules - just as laws - are many times open to interpretation and, as in Tiger's case, sometimes ridiculously so.


-JP

[atticusfinch]

*The purpose of all of my examples is to point out that rules - just as laws - are many times open to interpretation and, as in Tiger's case, sometimes ridiculously so.*

Is it your intention here to argue against a particular ruling, or to understand it?

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.The "Tour" rules don't always jive with "Our" rules.

For instance, let's say I hit a blind shot straight over a crest in a straight fairway and when I arrive at where I think my ball ought to be I can't find it because unbeknownst to me it struck a stick and caromed off into the rough. If I can't find it, I'll have to declare it lost and go back to the tee and hit another ball with a penalty stroke attached.

On Tour, that would never happen because they either have forecaddies whose sole purpose in life is to put little flags next to wayward balls to let the player know where it landed, or there are simply a gaggle of spectators who rush to surround it.

I don't have any such luxuries.

So where's the "equity" they're so fond of referring to at the USGA?-JP

I remember Tiger Woods losing his opening tee shot in the Open Championship a couple of years ago. Every spectator on the course was watching Tiger, the forecaddies were watching, the marshalls were watching and millions of people were watching on TV. His tee shot was in the right rough and was never found. he went back to the tee and hit three........just like the rest of us would've had to.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

So how does a ruling such as that address the issue of fairness?


The purpose of all of my examples is to point out that rules - just as laws - are many times open to interpretation and, as in Tiger's case, sometimes ridiculously so.


-JP

Again, it's a PGA Tour event... such rulings have no bearing on day to day play by average golfers. The PGA Tour has made several rule modifications that the USGA doesn't officially recognise, the most well known of which is the imbedded ball rule. Rule 25-2 states that "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 key phrase here being "closely mown area" (any area mowed to fairway height or less). The PGA Tour allows relief anyplace through the green, which extends the relief to include all areas of rough. Why do the best players get a break that we average Joes don't? Because the Tour says they do.... end of story. Even the USGA can't dictate to the Tour... they follow the rules they want to and modify the ones they don't like.

You can't always use PGA Tour incidents as prime examples for Rules issues, as there is no doubt that they play a somewhat different game than the rest of us. Had that incident with Tiger happened at a US Open (playing under the USGA's rules), he would likely have only gotten relief from the pavement, not line of flight if it was otherwise unreasonable for him to play in that direction, i.e. the clubhouse.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Again, it's a PGA Tour event... such rulings have no bearing on day to day play by average golfers. The PGA Tour has made several rule modifications that the USGA doesn't officially recognise, the most well known of which is the imbedded ball rule. Rule 25-2 states that "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 key phrase here being "closely mown area" (any area mowed to fairway height or less). The PGA Tour allows relief anyplace through the green, which extends the relief to include all areas of rough. Why do the best players get a break that we average Joes don't? Because the Tour says they do.... end of story. Even the USGA can't dictate to the Tour... they follow the rules they want to and modify the ones they don't like.

You can't always use PGA Tour incidents as prime examples for Rules issues, as there is no doubt that they play a somewhat different game than the rest of us. Had that incident with Tiger happened at a US Open (playing under the USGA's rules), he would likely have only gotten relief from the pavement, not line of flight if it was otherwise unreasonable for him to play in that direction, i.e. the clubhouse.

Local rules that are in accordance with local rules allowed by the rules of golf, are as valid as the rules of golf as any other rule. The PGA tour has enacted the local rule which allows relief from an embedded ball through the green. There is nothing untoward about it. See appendix I.B.3, and rule 33-8a. The Tour has not enacted any local rules not allowed by the rules of golf.

Not sure of the US open incident you refer to. What year? What were the the facts?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Local rules that are in accordance with local rules allowed by the rules of golf, are as valid as the rules of golf as any other rule. The PGA tour has enacted the local rule which allows relief from an embedded ball through the green. There is nothing untoward about it. See appendix I.B.3, and rule 33-8a. The Tour has not enacted any local rules not allowed by the rules of golf.

Not sure of the US open incident you refer to. What year? What were the the facts?

I didn't refer to any US Open incident... I said IF it had happened in the Open, Tiger may not have gotten as favorable a ruling. The PGA sometimes stretches the letter of the rules when granting relief from temporary obstructions. There was an incident a couple of years ago where one of the top players had a terrible lie in the rough behind a mobile TV camera crane. Instead of moving the crane (which they later admitted should have been done), they gave him line of play relief and a very favorable drop.

I didnt' see the incident of Tiger and the parking lot, but IF the clubhouse was in his line of play, and IF that made it ureasonable for him to play in the direction of the hole, then he shouldn't have been given line of play relief from a grandstand that was on the other side of the clubhouse from where his ball lay. The permanent immovable obstruction should have taken precedence over the temporary one.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I didn't refer to any US Open incident... I said IF it had happened in the Open, Tiger may not have gotten as favorable a ruling. The PGA sometimes stretches the letter of the rules when granting relief from temporary obstructions. There was an incident a couple of years ago where one of the top players had a terrible lie in the rough behind a mobile TV camera crane. Instead of moving the crane (which they later admitted should have been done), they gave him line of play relief and a very favorable drop.

I didnt' see the incident of Tiger and the parking lot, but IF the clubhouse was in his line of play, and IF that made it ureasonable for him to play in the direction of the hole, then he shouldn't have been given line of play relief from a grandstand that was on the other side of the clubhouse from where his ball lay. The permanent immovable obstruction should have taken precedence over the temporary one.

The crane incident you mention was ELs in the 1994 US Open. The USGA rules official who allowed the relief was Trey Holland who at the time was on the excutive committee and later elected president. He made a mistake.

When I get to my home computer I will post a diagram of the tiger incident at firestone.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

OK, so how is it "fair" that when Tiger hits a ball over a clubhouse and it comes to rest in the parking lot near the front door to that clubhouse, he ends up with a free drop and a clean line of sight to the green?

That particular "ruling" was claimed to be fair because between the clubhouse and his ball, there was a grandstand, which is a "Temporary Immovable Obstruction" and if the clubhouse were not there, then that grandstand would be and as such Tiger was entitled to line of sight relief and no penalty.

Now, the "Letter of the Law" crowd might be able to defend that, but the clubhouse - the brick and mortar permanent structure was between him and the green. Since his ball was resting near the front door of that building, it isn't reasonable to assume that he could have hit a shot over a three-story building that he was mere feet away from. Since he couldn't advance the ball beyond the primary obstacle, then any other obstacles beyond it are irrelevant.

What's more, is that if someone had the exact same situation the week following the tournament, there would be no grandstand and there would be no penalty-free relief.
You know as well as I do that if you or I attempted to claim relief in that situation we'd be laughed off the fairway.

So how does a ruling such as that address the issue of fairness?


The purpose of all of my examples is to point out that rules - just as laws - are many times open to interpretation and, as in Tiger's case, sometimes ridiculously so.


-JP

Here is an over head of the clubhouse and the grandstands. I drew it after several views of the videotape of the incident.

The angle lines show the interference lines of the grandstands, but before they come into play, he is entitled to relieve from the parkinglot where his ball came to rest. Point A. At that point the clubhouse seems to interfere with his line of play.

Point A1 is the nearest point of relief from the parking lot. Now there is no longer any interference from the clubhouse. Only the TIO is in the way.

The nearest point of non interference from the TIO is at point B.

ON edit: what a bummer the site will not let me uupload the file from my computer. The office com puter had that feature but at home all it lets me do is create a link to a url. Sorry.

I must correct this statement you made: the brick and mortar permanent structure was between him and the green.

This is not correct. After he took releif from the parking lot the clubhouse was no longer in his line (if it ever was). Only the grandstand intervened.

[atticusfinch]

OK, maby this will work. Wayyy.

See post above for legend of locations.

[JPsuff]

.



Whatever...



.