Why don't you for a second think of it like "it's a good job that they found out some kid had pinched his ball, because otherwise, they could have unfairly penalised Tiger for someone stealing his ball". The ball was in the IO. You know that and therefore you know what the fair result was. Someone took it, so they couldn't identify it straight away, but they had evidence that that happened. And someone did see it, so your statement is already false.
Also, if I hit a ball into a lake and see a splash, but you're not watching, you can't make me follow the lost ball rule. If you tried, I wouldn't be playing with you again any time soon I can assure you. You're entitled not to agree with me, but you're not entitled to insist I treat it as a lost ball. It's not my fault you're not watching and nor should I be penalised as such.
I realise this could get tedious (maybe already is) but there is an important point here.
It is a matter of opinion whether or not a report of someone seeing someone with a ball constitutes "reasonable evidence" that (a) it is a particular ball, (b) that it was lifted when at rest in an IO or (c) if it was interfered with in such a way as to prevent it leaving the IO. I contend that it is not enough evidence to support the ruling at the time (within 5 minutes). Furthermore the "retro" information of balls being found and returned, quotes from cooks and others etc. are anecdotal and open to manipulation - there is a pretty powerful PR machine at work here.
The responsibility to establish the facts of a situation are with the player, not the officials. The entire ethos of the game is that when there is doubt, you take the punishment.
As for my hypothetical situation; as I said in my post, it is entirely outside the spirit of the game to deny seeing something that you saw but I'm afraid that strictly within the rules of the game, if you cannot produce the ball or other evidence as to its location, I CAN insist it be a lost ball. Any adjudication by a Rules Committee would endorse that, although I wouldn't expect much by way of pleasant conversation afterwards.
That was intended to be a play on words- well spotted !
This is getting tedious. As has been stated several times above, and confirmed in the press conference, the drop was given relative to the point where the ball was taken by the outside agency in the car park, not in respect of the Immoveable Obstruction.
If it had been given relative to the IO, the drop would have been 40 yards closer. Read the press conference, folks !
I have studied it carefully; it doesn't change the essential issue - the information on which the decisons were based. That's my point, not what followed.
I realise this could get tedious (maybe already is) but there is an important point here.
It is a matter of opinion whether or not a report of someone seeing someone with a ball constitutes "reasonable evidence" that (a) it is a particular ball, (b) that it was lifted when at rest in an IO or (c) if it was interfered with in such a way as to prevent it leaving the IO. I contend that it is not enough evidence to support the ruling at the time (within 5 minutes). Furthermore the "retro" information of balls being found and returned, quotes from cooks and others etc. are anecdotal and open to manipulation - there is a pretty powerful PR machine at work here.
The responsibility to establish the facts of a situation are with the player, not the officials. The entire ethos of the game is that when there is doubt, you take the punishment.
As for my hypothetical situation; as I said in my post, it is entirely outside the spirit of the game to deny seeing something that you saw but I'm afraid that strictly within the rules of the game, if you cannot produce the ball or other evidence as to its location, I CAN insist it be a lost ball. Any adjudication by a Rules Committee would endorse that, although I wouldn't expect much by way of pleasant conversation afterwards.
Swingaling, a couple of things sort-of briefly...(to continue the flogging of the dead horse)...what part of an aerial shot from a tv camera of a ball entering the IO isn't 'reasonable'? If your point is the ball wasn't found in the IO, it is irrelevant since it was 'reasonable' to believe the ball entered the IO, thus negating the requirement to even look for it. Esp. given the knowledge it couldn't go through the IO and end up OB as apparently there is no OB until the Indiana state line.
Secondly, as to the "entire ethos of the game, when there is doubt, take the punishment" line...I would usually agree, but that is only if no one has a clue as to where the ball went (I've hit a few of those)..however there was no doubt other than Tiger's wondering if that where his ball went was OB(and by him asking if where he hit it was OB, it is implied he knew pretty much where it was headed) I know I am not going to assume one of my many errant shots is OB, drop and play w/ a stroke and distance penalty added on, without asking if a particular area is in play or definitely OB. And before you say he should have played a provisional, he asked if that was OB, was told it wasn't, and proceeded up to (and past) the green. Please don't take offense to this, but are you by chance a lawyer??? There is ALWAYS a big gray area to be interpreted w/ those guys!!! (and I'm joking for those lawyers reading this)
The question is not did the ball enter the IO, but did it remain in it. The other matter is not where O/B starts, but where the IO ends.
We saw a ball bounce onto or over the roof of the clubhouse. We did not see it after that. It was travelling pretty fast and another bounce off the tarmac in the car park could have taken it a long way.
The presumption was made that the ball remained in the IO, and would have remained in the IO without the outside interference. If the ball was not presumed still in the IO, it would have been lost, irrespective of any O/B issue, unless found within 5 minutes.
Of course I was not there but from what we saw and the information that emerged at the time - and since - the presumption was generous and based on anecdotal and unconfirmed information.
No, I'm not a lawyer but I have a lot of experience of rules adjudication, including being at the rough end of a few decisions.
including being at the rough end of a few decisions.
But unlike the Murphy's, you certainly are bitter about it. Like you said, you weren't there. There were however two people who get paid to make decisions on the rules of the game. Professionals if you will. They decided that there was reasonable evidence. That's good enough for me. My last words on this matter.
IF the IO is the whole area behind the green for miles then the Ruling was simple.
Ball in IO, Ball entered at point A, Ball dropped at point A, Relief from grandstand, Drop ball at point B and carry on. Time:- a couple of minutes, not 30 some.
August 29th, 2006, 11:59 AM
There is ALWAYS a big gray area to be interpreted w/ those guys!!! (and I'm joking for those lawyers reading this)
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
