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. ..... 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,......
So the official didn't let DC move his ball, and he now has an improved lie. What is the decent thing that DC then did to not take advantage of it?
He chipped back to the fairway on the grounds that that was all he would have been able to do from the dodgy lie. He could have hit it on the green from where he was, but didn't, because that would have been taking unfair advantage. It really was a pretty decent thing that he did.
He chipped back to the fairway on the grounds that that was all he would have been able to do from the dodgy lie. He could have hit it on the green from where he was, but didn't, because that would have been taking unfair advantage. It really was a pretty decent thing that he did.
Thanks for the clarification. And yes it was a nice call by Darren Clarke. If he knew for sure that he was going to chip it, it is only fair he chipped it out now. If he had had any doubt about which route he was going to take, going to the green would have posed no real moral problem, and lots of people would have twisted that in their favor.
The onus to establish (a) the location of the ball (b) the identity of the ball and (c) its position in relation to interference with stance or swing is with the PLAYER - not the officials.
If Tiger's ball was on the carpet in the dining room, he could have had a perfect stance and swing. But it is not the responsibility of the officials to promote such a hypothesis, it is the responsibility of the player to show otherwise.
If he can't do all or any of the above within 5 minutes of beginning the search, the ball is lost. It was not returned to him or identified as his during the period before his next shot. It was a lost ball.
The essence of this is that the officials made a series of co-dependent decisions based on hearsay and speculation. It is a matter of opinion if the combination amounted to " reasonable evidnce". In my view it did not even come close.
Give it a week or so; my guess is we will have a "mature reflection" on this from the PGA rules people before too long - otherwise their credibility is shot.
If Tiger's ball was on the carpet in the dining room, he could have had a perfect stance and swing. But it is not the responsibility of the officials to promote such a hypothesis, it is the responsibility of the player to show otherwise.
Leaving aside whether the ball was identified or not within five minutes, this suggestion is rubbish. A ball resting on a cart path is entitled to relief just because you're standing on it. If the ball is sitting anywhere in or on the clubhouse, it is by definition affected and therefore the player is entitled to relief. Carpet is still clubhouse and is still therefore immovable obstruction.
The ONLY way that Tiger's ball would have been in a position that wasn't in the IO would be if it had bounced back onto the course. If it was on the roof then it was in the IO. If it went over the roof into the carpark, it was in the IO. If it went down an air conditioning vent, it was in the IO. If it went over the clubhouse and over the carpark onto the road that runs between the courses, it was STILL in the IO. The ONLY OB on the course is the driving range. Seeing the ball go over the clubhouse was in itself amply sufficient to be convinced that the ball was in the IO.
Leaving aside whether the ball was identified or not within five minutes, this suggestion is rubbish. A ball resting on a cart path is entitled to relief just because you're standing on it. If the ball is sitting anywhere in or on the clubhouse, it is by definition affected and therefore the player is entitled to relief. Carpet is still clubhouse and is still therefore immovable obstruction.
The ONLY way that Tiger's ball would have been in a position that wasn't in the IO would be if it had bounced back onto the course. If it was on the roof then it was in the IO. If it went over the roof into the carpark, it was in the IO. If it went down an air conditioning vent, it was in the IO. If it went over the clubhouse and over the carpark onto the road that runs between the courses, it was STILL in the IO. The ONLY OB on the course is the driving range. Seeing the ball go over the clubhouse was in itself amply sufficient to be convinced that the ball was in the IO.
Don't think you've read or understood the press conference. It's crystal clear that they did not use the ruling relating to the IO as the ball was effectively found, (although it had been moved by an outside agency). More than once the point is made that if they had, Tiger's drop would have been considerably closer to the hole, as they would have been measuring from the green-side of the clubhouse, not the car park at the back.
We just have to take their word for it that this story came up within the five minute search period !!
I did read the press conference, although after I posted that. I think the key point is if it wasn't found, then they would have proceeded under the ball lost in IO situation. The question of five minutes should be moot given that the official said he was timing it and they were happy and the end result would have been roughly the same even if they'd lost it.
Being in an IO does NOT automatically entitle a player to relief. Relief for interference in an IO applies only to swing and stance.
The ball was not "effectively found". There were reports of a ball been seen and picked up. That ball was NOT identified as Tiger's within the period of the ruling and certainly not within the 5 minutes search rule. The onus to identify the ball is the player's - not the officials to show otherwise.
This was a case of presumption and assumption by officials under duress, because of the player involved and the media pressure. It was a lost ball.
There need to be some changes to the o-b in that area.I read that the ball could go over the clubhouse across a road onto the other course and still be in bounds.Tiger got lucky and the official made the call,Tiger just benefited from it.30mins was way too long!
There need to be some changes to the o-b in that area.I read that the ball could go over the clubhouse across a road onto the other course and still be in bounds.Tiger got lucky and the official made the call,Tiger just benefited from it.30mins was way too long!
August 27th, 2006, 12:15 PM
out of bounds?
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
