If his ball could have rolled over the clubhouse then it could have easily rolled into an O/B area for all anyone knows.
Not without taking a 270 degree turn and travelling another 450 yards.
The only OB at Firestone South is the practice next to the first hole. Even if it continued through the parking lot/food prep area, across the road, onto Firestone North, it is still play.
At which point he would still be entitled to relief from both the IO and the TIO.
Can you cite one instance where the rules officials were in error in this case?
Um, how about ruling a brick and mortar clubhouse a temporary immovable object. Temporary could be a trailer clubhouse for a new course but not one that has resided there for 30 some years...please!
Given the result that PGA Tour rules officials made (after lengthy deliberation and with the world watching), maybe it's time to rethink where you sit. Can you cite one instance where the rules officials were in error in this case?
How about a drop which the rukes official said was 100 yards, but Tiger said was 83 or 84 yards ?
Um, how about ruling a brick and mortar clubhouse a temporary immovable object. Temporary could be a trailer clubhouse for a new course but not one that has resided there for 30 some years...please!
Well, they didn't have it marked as out of bounds or anything else, so they did what they thought was fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by upanddown
How about a drop which the rukes official said was 100 yards, but Tiger said was 83 or 84 yards ?
I think the rules official meant 100 yards diagonally from the clubhouse over to the right of the green. Tiger's ball went 40+ yards through the green to end up on the roof of the clubhouse, and then another 40 to end up in the parking lot on the other side. When you do it diagonally from the clubhouse to the drop area, that means that Tiger's shot would be a bit less since he was going directly sideways towards the green.
Well, they didn't have it marked as out of bounds or anything else, so they did what they thought was fair.
I think the rules official meant 100 yards diagonally from the clubhouse over to the right of the green. Tiger's ball went 40+ yards through the green to end up on the roof of the clubhouse, and then another 40 to end up in the parking lot on the other side. When you do it diagonally from the clubhouse to the drop area, that means that Tiger's shot would be a bit less since he was going directly sideways towards the green.
Sorry, you've lost me there. The rules official seemed to be quite specific about the distance (100 yds) being an equivalent distance from the hole. You seem to be saying the 100 yards is the distance from where the ball was "assumed" to have come to rest diagonally across the back of the green to the dropping point. Why would he mention or even have any need to know this distance ? If the drop had been 10 yards away on the same side of the green, would the official mention having to measure 10 yards sideways, or would he be more concened with the ball not being nearer the hole ?
In Europe a distinct contrast is being drawn between Tiger yesterday and Darren Clarke earlier this season when he refused to take advantage of his ball being moved by a spectator and deliberately took no advantage of his improved lie.
It's the drop point that was ruled on, not the distance from the hole. Rules officials deal with specific points of relief, not the estimated yardages to the green. The rules official may be guilty of a poor yardage estimate (I'd venture to say that his wedge game isn't as sharp as it should be ) but that has nothing to do with the ruling.
I quite agree that the drop point was part of the ruling, but the distance from the hole is crucial, as the drop is to be not nearer the hole. We were told that distance measurements were taken, so the drop should not have been nearer, pure and simple. I have to say that the distance from the drop point looked closer to the hole than from the back of the clubhouse, if that is where the mystery man allegedly pocketed TW's ball.
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.
Um, how about ruling a brick and mortar clubhouse a temporary immovable object. Temporary could be a trailer clubhouse for a new course but not one that has resided there for 30 some years...please!
Wrong. They did NOT rule that it was a temporary imovable obstruction (TIO) they ruled that it was an IO (imovable obstruction). Nothing temporary about it.
They did rule that the grandstand was a TIO which is obviously the case and is the case with every grandstand in every PGA tournament.
How does Tiger's estimation of distance from the hole make the ruling, or the drop, wrong? The point of this thread seems to be that the rules, specifically in this particular incident, are bent to favor Tiger Woods. That's absurd and only comes from those that dislike Tiger. Players get favorable rulings everyday but only Tiger's favorable rulings garner such indignation.
Quite wrong in my case, I am afraid- I think Tiger's great. However, I do think he is accomodated by officials, much like Seve, another of my heroes used to be.
How very convenient that the ball went for a walk in someone's pocket, and how very strange that this was not mentioned until after the whole 35 minute saga, despite there being cameras so close to the action !
Also, if Tiger said it was 83 yards, believe me, it was 83 yards. He or Steve Williams or both of them will have paced out such a short distance.
Strange, in the coverage I was watching everyone seemed to be in agreement with the yardage and not a single announcer questioned the yardage of the drop.
I think you are off target with what aspect of this is actually controversial. What an official might have said the drop might be and what Tiger might have said the drop was, really doesn't give me any reason to doubt the location of the drop. It's all hearsay. The official measured the location of the IO and then measured the location of the drop.
What was initially controversial (OB or lost ball) has been explained. The clubhouse was not marked as OB so it is an IO, imovable obstruction. When a ball enters an IO it does not need to be found and a free drop is the correct solution.
Last edited by davehowe : August 26th, 2006 at 09:56 PM.
Strange, in the coverage I was watching everyone seemed to be in agreement with the yardage and not a single announcer questioned the yardage of the drop.
I think you are off target with what aspect of this is actually controversial. What an official might have said the drop might be and what Tiger might have said the drop was, really doesn't give me any reason to doubt the location of the drop. It's all hearsay. The official measured the location of the IO and then measured the location of the drop.
What was initially controversial (OB or lost ball) has been explained. The clubhouse was not marked as OB so it is an IO, imovable obstruction. When a ball enters an IO it does not need to be found and a free drop is the correct solution.
OK we won't argue over the yardage. However, as I understand it, the free drop was not for the ball being in an IO, as the ball allegedly came out of the IO and into the mystery man's pocket at ground level.
So the ball was then not in the IO but effectively was back on the course. Now if you believe this was established within the 5 minute search period then why did it take a further 30 minutes thereafter to measure to the hole and then establish and measure a dropping point ?
Looked pretty clear to any reasonable person watching live that no-one had any idea what had happened to the ball for at least 20 minutes or so.
They should have stuck with the "Ball in IO" story !
Is the Clubhouse an Immovable Obstruction or an Integral part of the course.
This difference means a lot in this decision.
Moortown GC in Leeds used to have the clubhouse as an integral part of the course until a Mr Nigel Denham hit his second shot through an open door and finished up in the middle of the Lounge. After a few discussions he played his next shot off the carpet through another open door and made a five. After this incident the club made the clubhouse OOB.
If Firestones clubhouse is an integral part of the course Tiger would have had to play from the position his ball finished and when that was determined he could get relief from the grandstand but it seems the position of the ball was not known so therefore LOST.
Sorry to the PGA guys, but from the information I have seen they got it wrong.
There is no evidence the ball came "to rest" in the IO. The ball was approaching the IO at high speeds, the roof was flat, there was no gallery on the roof, its obvious the ball went over. There was also no evidence of an outside agency picking up Tigers ball. Therefore it is a lost ball. The correct ruling would be to replay the shot with penalty strokes.
It was the 2 guys over on the grassy knoll, its a conspiracy. Im not a rules expert by any means, but I do however think that the ruling was handled in the way that the OFFICIALS deemed best. As for the *tiger rules*, it seems like the majority of the folks with the problem with the rulings are probably Phil or Ernie or Vijay or...............fans.
August 26th, 2006, 06:34 PM
) but that has nothing to do with the ruling. 
Im not a rules expert by any means, but I do however think that the ruling was handled in the way that the OFFICIALS deemed best. As for the *tiger rules*, it seems like the majority of the folks with the problem with the rulings are probably Phil or Ernie or Vijay or...............fans.
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
