I can see calling the grandstands "temporary immovable obstructions" and he should get relief from grandstands, but to call the clubhouse a TIO is insane!
I read the story on the guy who "found" the ball and put it in the drink holder of the cart he was using to set up a catering function...what was that guy thinking? How many loose balls are flying around at a golf tournament...got to believe that someone might come looking for it...
haha the best had to of been the time he hit his 4 iron from 278, mccord was like, IM CHECKING HIS CLUBS, and doesnt he have them upright too?, guy is nuts
The o/b issue is important but not central. The central issue is how the officials interpreted the "reasonable evidence" that the "ball in pocket" was (a) Tigers and (b) where it was when the outside interference started. The ball was not found or identified. Where I play, that constitutes a lost ball.
I am firmly of the view that the officals bowed to pressure and used the discretion allowed under the rules to make a disgraceful decision in Tiger's favour. It should offend anyone with the interests of the game at heart.
When a ball is lost in bushes or something, they pull back to bushes and the player has to actually take a look at the ball to make sure it is their individual ball.
When did Tiger identify his ball?
I can see calling the grandstands "temporary immovable obstructions" and he should get relief from grandstands, but to call the clubhouse a TIO is insane!
They didn't call it a TIO - it is an IO. He was entitled to free relief from either. Now if he took relief from the IO, he was still going to be obstructed by the TIO (grandstand) which surrounds the green. Therefore they went to relief from the TIO.
The delay was caused by
No rules official was present with the group
they had two simultaneous rulings to handle
they waived through at least one group
they needed to determine the distance to where the ball was in the IO, e.g.., how far to go for relief
A ball cannot be lost in an IO or TIO. The player is entitled to free relief. No lost ball, no provisional required. The player is not obligated to search for a ball in an IO, TIO, ground under repair, or casual water.
Whilst it took a long time to sort things out, this is one time the rules officials got it right.
The o/b issue is important but not central. The central issue is how the officials interpreted the "reasonable evidence" that the "ball in pocket" was (a) Tigers and (b) where it was when the outside interference started. The ball was not found or identified. Where I play, that constitutes a lost ball.
I am firmly of the view that the officals bowed to pressure and used the discretion allowed under the rules to make a disgraceful decision in Tiger's favour. It should offend anyone with the interests of the game at heart.
The ball entered an IO. A ball that is deemed to have entered and stayed in an IO is not a lost ball. There is no requirement a player has to search for or identify a ball in or on an IO. Whether it stayed on the roof or rolled off the back into that parking lot/food prep area is immaterial. The ball was in an IO, therefore it was not lost, and the player is entitled to relief.
The most common situation for relief from an IO/TIO is when a ball enters the grandstand. It is not uncommon for those balls to never be found. That doesn't mean it is a lost ball with stroke and distance penalty. The player is simply granted relief from the TIO.
Last edited by BPC : August 26th, 2006 at 03:28 PM.
The ball entered an IO. A ball that is deemed to have entered and stayed in an IO is not a lost ball. There is no requirement a player has to search for or identify a ball in or on an IO. Whether it stayed on the roof or rolled off the back into that parking lot/food prep area is immaterial. The ball was in an IO, therefore it was not lost, and the player is entitled to relief.
The most common situation for relief from an IO/TIO is when a ball enters the grandstand. It is not uncommon for those balls to never be found. That doesn't mean it is a lost ball with stroke and distance penalty. The player is simply granted relief from the TIO.
Thanks for the clarification BPC. That was my only objection to the situation ... the lost ball aspect and Tiger not hitting a provisional.
The ball entered an IO. A ball that is deemed to have entered and stayed in an IO is not a lost ball. There is no requirement a player has to search for or identify a ball in or on an IO.
There was also evidence that the ball may have been acted on by an outside agency - a security guard and one of the kitchen chefs so a ball land in a cart behind the clubhouse, and the young guy in the cart yelled at the guard to stop throwing balls at him! The young guy then drove off with the ball. The decision to do all this was made in the allotted 5 minutes. Then they had to determine distance, where to drop, allow the group playing through to finish, etc.
I agree with BPC - the officials did a great job following the rules and providing an equitable ruling.
Sorry guys- missing (or evading?) the point. The key word is "deemed" - but the evidence supporting that is third hand; no ball was produced or identified.
The other point "evidence that the ball may have been acted upon by an outside agency" is equally unsupported.
Bottom line - the ball was not found and not identified as his. The rest is at the discretion of the officials and they made a shamefully bad call.
I don't know why anyone is arguing. Its as clear cut a case as case as can be imagined. I sit on our rules committee and if anyone presented that case they would be outta there is under a minute and with a stiff reprimand for having had the cheek to bring it.
I would give it about a week and then the PGA rules people will issue a fullsome admission and apology. That will allow Tiger to cah whatever cheque he earns and give them time to save some face.
Sorry guys- missing (or evading?) the point. The key word is "deemed" - but the evidence supporting that is third hand; no ball was produced or identified.
The other point "evidence that the ball may have been acted upon by an outside agency" is equally unsupported.
Bottom line - the ball was not found and not identified as his. The rest is at the discretion of the officials and they made a shamefully bad call.
I don't know why anyone is arguing. Its as clear cut a case as case as can be imagined. I sit on our rules committee and if anyone presented that case they would be outta there is under a minute and with a stiff reprimand for having had the cheek to bring it.
I would give it about a week and then the PGA rules people will issue a fullsome admission and apology. That will allow Tiger to cah whatever cheque he earns and give them time to save some face.
WOW! You sit on your rules committee, so you're obviously more qualified and in a better position watching it on your TV than the PGA Rules officials chosen to work an event like the Firestone, who just happen to be on site, hearing everything from all parties involved, and witnessing what's happening firsthand!
So, Mr. Rules Committee Member, you do not believe the rules as explained so well by BPC about the ball entering an IO, and then being obstructed by an TIO, are relevant? How about a rules reference that defends your position?
In support of the points BPC made, I will make the following reference to the Rules of Golf:
Rule 24-3 Ball Lost in Obstruction , part b.
Quote:
If a ball is lost in an immovable obstruction, the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the obstruction must be determined and, for the purpose of applying this Rule, the ball is deemed to lie at this spot and the player may take relief as follows:
(i) Through the Green: If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the immovable obstruction at a spot through the green, the player may substitute another ball without penalty and take relief as prescribed in Rule 24-2b(i).
(ii) In a Bunker: If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the immovable obstruction at a spot in a bunker, the player may substitute another ball without penalty and take relief as prescribed in Rule 24-2b(ii).
(iii) In a Water Hazard (including a Lateral Water Hazard): If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the immovable obstruction at a spot in a water hazard, the player is not entitled to relief without penalty. The player must proceed under Rule 26-1.
(iv) On the Putting Green: If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the immovable obstruction at a spot on the putting green, the player may substitute another ball without penalty and take relief as prescribed in Rule 24-2b(iii).
Your position on this subject smacks more of a dislike for Tiger than a reverence for the rules.
Sorry guys- missing (or evading?) the point. The key word is "deemed" - but the evidence supporting that is third hand; no ball was produced or identified.
The other point "evidence that the ball may have been acted upon by an outside agency" is equally unsupported.
Bottom line - the ball was not found and not identified as his. The rest is at the discretion of the officials and they made a shamefully bad call.
I don't know why anyone is arguing. Its as clear cut a case as case as can be imagined. I sit on our rules committee and if anyone presented that case they would be outta there is under a minute and with a stiff reprimand for having had the cheek to bring it.
I would give it about a week and then the PGA rules people will issue a fullsome admission and apology. That will allow Tiger to cah whatever cheque he earns and give them time to save some face.
No kidding. If his ball could have rolled over the clubhouse then it could have easily rolled into an O/B area for all anyone knows. His ball was lost, he should not get relief from an IO and TIO when no one knows where his ball came to rest.
Those rules officials should be fired, not only for botching the ruling, but for taking 30 minutes to do something routine. Tiger should send his winnings to the rules officials if he wins by one shot. Luckily that won't happen, I see hes in the middle of a third round collapse.
No kidding. If his ball could have rolled over the clubhouse then it could have easily rolled into an O/B area for all anyone knows. His ball was lost, he should not get relief from an IO and TIO when no one knows where his ball came to rest.
Those rules officials should be fired, not only for botching the ruling, but for taking 30 minutes to do something routine. Tiger should send his winnings to the rules officials if he wins by one shot. Luckily that won't happen, I see hes in the middle of a third round collapse.
My thoughts exactly. Either the ball entered and stayed in the IO, giving a free drop OR the ball came out of the IO and was picked up and taken away by the mysterious kid/chef/security guard, giving a free drop.
Which way do they want it ? No-one else would have been given this ruling (brings back memories of the rock in the desert).
My thoughts exactly. Either the ball entered and stayed in the IO, giving a free drop OR the ball came out of the IO and was picked up and taken away by the mysterious kid/chef/security guard, giving a free drop.
Which way do they want it ? No-one else would have been given this ruling (brings back memories of the rock in the desert).
In point of fact, everyone else would have been given this ruling. The officials followed the rules to the tee. If nothing else, I would expect them to be more harsh on Tiger purely for the simple fact that a bunch of know-it-alls on the internet will be second guessing everything about it.
Last edited by Ty_Webb : August 26th, 2006 at 06:40 PM.
August 26th, 2006, 01:42 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
