golfrewind.com

So BigboyDan, where was the edge of the IO? Was the carpark a part of the IO? Was where the ball was picked up by the kid or the cook or whoever it was part of the IO? The rules official (who presumably knows the rules better than most on here) decided when he was told what had happened that it was part of the IO and that therefore Tiger was entitled to relief. Why can't you accept that?

[quote=BigboyDan]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:


Seems like what we need here to put this to bed is everyone getting their stories straight as to where the ball actually came to rest.

So far I have read:

1 On TW's official site- that he hit the ball on the clubhouse roof (implying that it stayed there)- If so, free drop at point of crossing the boundary, then free drop to avoid the grandstand.

2. Also on TW's site- the ball was picked up in the car park by a chef. If the line of sight relief applied from there also, free drop to avoid the grandstand TIO.

3. A ball was seen to be taken by a kid by a security guard. The kid then drives off in a golf cart, having said to the guard " why are you throwing golf balls at me?" I believe I saw this on the PGAtour site yesterday, but can't now check this.

If the official story is # 3, the evidence seems to be too flimsy to support replacing the ball under the rules and the ball is deemed lost.

In any event, there seems to be no reasonable evidence that the ball stayed in the IO (the clubhouse), so could not be considered lost under that rule (no penalty).

The question therefore remains, was the ball found under story 2 or 3 within the 5 minutes ? I don't think so.

I have no doubt that the officials know the rules; my issue is with how they used the discretion allowed under them.

The law on Immovable Obstructions relates only to interference with stance and swing. THERE IS NO INTERFERENCE WHEN THE OBSTRUCTION LIES BETWEEN THE BALL AND THE TARGET.

If Tiger's ball was in the clubhouse (for the sake of argument we'll swallow the hokum that a clubhouse is an IO), then he had to play it as it lies or take relief if he could show interference with stance or swing. As the ball was not found, nor its positioned established, this could not be done. It was a lost ball.

The law on Temporary Immovable Obsructions related to the Grandstand ONLY - not the clubhouse. For the officials to give Tiger a free drop under the TIO rule required as zany a set of assumptions as can be imagined, as I have pointed out in earlier posts.

There is also something missing here - called the spirit of the game. Some of that died on Friday. Do I dislike Tiger? - over issues like this, a hearty yes to that.

The clubhouse is an IO. Apparently Colonial is the only course on tour where the clubhouse is anything other than an IO.

How pray tell can the ball be in the clubhouse and not interfering with the stance or swing?

It's position WAS established. So said the rules official.

And what exactly about the spirit of the game has been lost? Tiger hit it way long over the green and as a consequence played his third shot from somewhere between 80 and 100 yards "back" to the green. Those are the rules. If the official had said "oh, you're Tiger Woods, you can drop the ball on the back fringe of the green for no penalty." then you would have a case. As it is, there is nothing in this except incessant whining from Tiger-haters.

I also read elsewhere that McGinley got exactly the same ruling as Tiger. Noone's complained about that, which adds to my earlier theory that Tiger is held to a higher standard by the rules officials to head off this kind of armchair expert rubbish.

All of this is irrelevant I'm afraid. Read Tiger's full press conference on his website and he says that the ball ended up in someone's pocket and that it was returned to him, so presumably he identified it as his, although it did not have to be returned to him (correct).

This makes all talk of the clubhouse irrelevant. The big question that I return to is- Was the ball found within 5 minutes ?

If his ball was lost, do you honestly think that the rules officials would have let him take a drop?????

Tour players get favourable rulings all the time. The one that always annoys me is when someone's in serious cabbage and can't hardly move their ball ten yards, but 200 yards away is a grandstand between them and the flag. They then get a free drop out to some place they can knock it on the green. That's certainly not equitable, but it happens fairly regularly. When it does, you don't get all this hullabaloo about it. On the other hand, players get free relief from immovable obstructions ALL THE TIME. That's all that happened on Friday. Get over it.

I agree with you totally on the cases you mention, but
I also notice that you totally ignore the question- do you believe that the ball was found in 5 minutes ? I certainly saw no evidence of that.

Well, I was saying that I don't know whether the ball was found in 5 minutes. I'm not 100% sure it needed to be. Whether it did or it didn't and whether it was or it wasn't, the rules officials were satisfied that the ball was not lost. So, if it did need to be found, then it was and if it didn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. The evidence is in the testimony from the rules officials.

In this day and age there is far to much emphasis on the Rule Official. I say lets get back to some basics here and involve the MARKER of the card. This event was a farce and took for ever and let's face the facts here , if it was not Tiger being involved this drama would have been resolved within the 5 MINUTES allowed.

The Rules state these facts.

If the position of the ball can not be determined without "reasonable evidence", it is deemed to be lost.

If the ball ended up in a cart and the cart then moved the ball should be dropped where the cart first was. (Rule 19)

If a ball that as come to rest is then moved by an Outside Agency, it must be replaced without penalty. (Rule 18)

From what I have seen and heard, we can not make any decision without knowing every fact, but this seems the likely scenario.

1. Tiger hits shot from trees and asks where has it gone?

2. He is told it's flown the grandstand and bounced into the clubhouse.

3. Tiger asks if it's OOB over the green and is told by an official that it is not.

4. Tiger is told that the ball is on the roof when he arrives behind the green. (Fault One- The actual position of the ball is unknown at this time and the 5minute rule should begin).

5. Tiger asks for a Ruling with regard where to drop etc.

6. The Officials start to work out where he can drop without first determining that the ball actually is IN THE IO.

7. A ball appears and Tiger identifies it has his.

8. The Officials have to now work out what the correct action is and this takes time to find our where the ball finished etc. They forget the 5minute rule and give Tiger relief to the side of the grandstand.

Tiger left everything to the Officials and is not at fault in anyway but the Officials did not quite get it right.

Agree totally. I think that is the most likely scenario. No fault of Tiger's, although many other players would have ruled themselves out under the 5-minute rule. The officials PROBABLY made a mess of this, and as usual the best player gets the best rulings. It happened with Jack, Seve many times, Faldo (Wentworth against Graham Marsh). It probably happened with Harry Vardon, Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones too. It's just human nature.

Wow. Care to justify that one? Can you give me any example of a player disagreeing with a rules official giving a ruling, to their detriment?

Fileygolfer, the rules officials decided that they had reasonable evidence for what had happened to the ball. Therefore it is not lost. This is not something that is up for argument. I suppose next time someone hits it in a water hazard and we see a big splash, that you will expect them to find their ball and identify it as theirs, before being allowed to follow the procedure for a water hazard. Both are situations where there is reasonable evidence that the ball was where it was (a fact vindicated by the ball later being found). Only difference being that some people seem to resent the fact that Tiger got a free drop.

If I might answer for FileyGolfer, there is a massive difference between seeing a ball splash in a water hazard (more than reasonable evidence that it is in the hazard) and seeing a ball bounce onto a roof and assuming that it is still on the roof. If the way FileyGolfer and I see this is correct, they made this assumption incorrectly as the ball later turned up at ground level in someone's pocket.

As to anyone turning down a ruling in their favour, the nearest I can give you is Darren Clarke refusing to take advantage of his improved lie. That was playing to the spirit of the game. You get me wrong here, as I have already said above, I am a Tiger fan, and he did nothing outside the letter of the law, just as Darren would have been entitled to knock the ball onto the green from his improved lie. within the letter of the law. Different strokes, literally, for different folks, I guess.

If Tiger had an inkling that the ruling was wrong, then morally, he should have raised his doubts with the official, and he certainly does know the rules.

It would have been the golfing equivalent of a cricketer admitting that a catch which the umpire has given as out was not taken cleanly, and even in these sorry times that does still happen.

In what way did Darren Clarke refuse to take advantage of his improved lie? What happened exactly in that case?

I'm not entirely sure what happened with the Darren Clarke incident, but as I understood it, he marked his ball for a weather delay and was in heavy rough. When he came back the next day, his marker was in a clear spot. Someone had moved it and the rules official wouldn't let him move it back. Is that right? In any case, it's not the same as getting a favourable drop. If Clarke's feet had been on a sprinkler head and his nearest point of relief had been in a better lie, he would have gladly taken that drop and played on merrily. In the instance where he chipped out, he had got an unfair advantage and everyone knew that. Hat's off to him for doing the decent thing there, but I don't think it's the same as Tiger saying, "actually, I don't think I deserve relief here, I'm going back to those trees and playing four." Tiger would have been hurting himself for no reason.

The rules official said immediately after the drop had been given that they had been told by a police officer that he'd seen the ball come over the roof of the clubhouse and land in a cart where some kid was sitting and shouted at the policeman. This story had been verified by someone else (I think a crane operator). The rules official stated that this was considered reasonable evidence that that was tiger's ball (as it was, evidenced by the ball later being returned) and they went about getting relief at that point. Neither you nor I know whether that was informed within five minutes of when Tiger started searching for his ball. I think it's reasonable to assume that since the rules officials know what they're doing, they would have considered that they knew what happened to the ball within the required timescales.

Rules officials do get things wrong from time to time. If you want to actually pick on a player getting a serious advantage from a very poor rules decision, look no further than Ernie Els in the 2004 Masters on the 11th hole in the final round. Greenkeepers' rubble my ****. That was very poor. The situation with Tiger appears to be reasonable.