golfrewind.com

It doesn't matter anymore. It's done.
No rules were broken. It's not as though any of us would be complaining if the ruling played out in our favor.
For those who can't get over it, get a grip. The Tiger-bashing is ridiculous, and has become tedious.

Interesting sidenote to all this - the PGA official stated in his press conference yesterday that of ALL the PGA Tour stops, only ONE has the clubhouse staked off as OB - Colonial. For every other event, the clubhouse is an IO.

A ball lost in an obstruction is covered by the rules. If the ball enters an obstruction, it was no penalty and he gets to drop where it entered the obstruction which was the by the road in front of the clubhouse.

I have seen many opinions here, but I have yet to see any citation of the rules of golf by those arguing Tiger received a favorable or incorrect ruling. Please, enlighten us all how exactly did the officials err in their ruling?

All I have seen so far is a lot of hot air and bias and conjecture, but NOT ONCE have you come up with a logical reason based on an interpretation of the rules of golf. One of the most vociferous proponents of this sits on a rules committee, and not once have we seen a reference to the rules of golf. What happened, you guys read rule 1 about equity and decided that's good enough, for everything else we'll just take a flyer?

5 minute rule? HELLO?? Do you guys even crack open that rule the USGA sends you every year when you renew your membership? Are you even vaguely familar with the "exceptions" to Rule 27-1 (Ball Lost or Out of Bounds) as well as the concept of "reasoanable evidence" that is used in a few lost ball situations all the time (Rule 26-1, 24-3 and 25-1c).

It is immaterial if the ball was in or on or over the IO (the clubhouse). He gets relief from the point it entered the IO.

It is immaterial the ball was or was not picked up. The ball wasn't lost, it merely entered the IO. He gets relief from that point. However, he still was entitled to relief from the TIO (the grandstand).

Since giving him relief from the IO would not give him relief from the TIO he was entitled to, the officials went back up the fairway and marked off the point of nearest relief not nearer the hole from the point it entered the IO.

Regarding the distance - it was 167 to the flag. Williams said it went 212 on the fly. So that's 45 yards from the hole to the point it landed on the cartpath. I suppose the other 114 feet would be the point it entered the IO.

What happened after it entered the IO was not part of the ruling. Nor should it have been. He gets relief from the point it entered the IO.

We're not building rockets here, guys.

It entered the TIO. End of story.

Wildbore has it right; the ball must be determined to have rested in the IO, by fact, just "entering" the IO is not enough to get relief. The ball, if not proven to be found in the IO, is lost.

Very good points, but not applicable in this situation.

The Firestone clubhouse is an IO and has been declared such by the local rules committee. Unlike many of the Open rota courses, it is not an integral part of the course, and therefore the player is entitled to relief.

Only if the ball is found resting IN the IO.

Citation? Or just your opinion on the matter?

There is no requirement to look for a ball in an IO or ground under repair or casual water. That is clearly spelled out in Rule 24. Which rule were you thinking of? Enlighten us all, please.

Your ball goes through the vent of a port-a-potty. It is unclear where it went after that. Just for the sake of argument, let's say it went down the number two hole.

Thankfully, the rules of golf provide that you do not have to search for your ball, or identify it, or determine that it is resting at the bottom of the number two hole.

What makes anyone think that the ball went into the IO? From what I saw on TV, the ball went THROUGH, or OVER the IO, and came to rest outside the IO - and supposedly was picked up by a person. Tiger then supposedly said, "Yes, that's my ball.", after being shown it by someone who retrieved it from the person who picked it up. That person sure did not pick it up off the roof...

Don't faint here, but I don't think Woods did anything wrong. See I can be unbiased.

The only thing he might could have done differently was play a provisional just in case.

He had an official there and did what he was told.

Obviously, the committee should have handled that situation long before.

Did the fact that it happened to who it happened to have some effect on the ruling? Possibly, but we will never know. Still, that is not his problem.

More and more I wonder where his red cape is and when he'll let us see the big red "S" on the suit he's wearing under his golf togs.

Some have continuously referenced the rules, while others continuously referenced opinions contrary to what the rules state.

Do your homework, fellas. Or at least accept it when someone else does your homework for you regardless of whether you perceive the rule to be fair or unfair. It's right there, it has been referenced, end of discussion (or at least it would seem...)

Good job, BPC.

24-3 Ball Lost in Obstruction
It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck toward an obstruction is lost in the obstruction. In order to treat the ball as lost in the obstruction, there must be reasonable evidence to that effect. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a lost ball and Rule 27 applies.


The evidence that Tiger's ball did not come to rest in the IO is that someone picked up the ball as it was rolling to him, there is reasonable evidence that his hand is not an IO.

I suggest that one read the first few words of 24-3b:

24-3b. Ball Lost in Immovable Obstruction
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:


"IF..."

There is no if in this case, we factually know where the ball came to rest, and it was not not in an IO...

I just can't take it any more!!!!
:::removing my subscription to this thread:::