Thanks, TV, For Proving That Golf Needs Some Rule Changes
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 3:54 PM EDT
in Pro Golf
Email
PrintIn two different instances this season on two different tours, it has become clear that some of the Rules of Golf are a little antiquated. First, it began with Michelle Wie's two stroke penalty at the LPGA Tour's Kia Classic for grounding her club in a hazard while the ball was still in it. Despite her lame excuse and pouting to the LPGA rules official, the situation proved a point: why should a player be penalized for doing something that has no bearing on the outcome of a shot? So what if she was trying to sell that she couldn't keep her amazon frame upright without the club crutch? The point should have been that the rule is kind of ridiculous.
Yesterday's Brian Davis situation left me thinking the exact same thing. Why in the world should a playoff end because Davis hit a single reed with his club while attempting to swing? I know it's hard to measure intent, so the Rules of Golf has this rule to take interpretation out of such things, but come on. You and I both know that Brian Davis wasn't swinging to try to move the reed so he could hit his beach bunker shot. Brian Davis knows it. Jim Nantz knows it.
Instead of waxing coolly about Davis' honor for the rules, why not talk about how silly they are. Almost no one actually follows them when they play golf with their buddies. People play shots out of hazards by trampling down anything that they can ahead of time. Grounding your club in the hazard? I play with guys who ground their clubs in the bunker to play an explosion shot. Yeah, it's different for the Tour guys - a million dollars was on the line in that playoff on Sunday - but it just seems like some of the Rules of Golf could stand a little relaxing in this era of the new fangled TV.
Fans - more of them than you think - sit at home and watch golf with the rules in their pockets. If they see a minor infraction, they call up the USGA, or the PGA Tour, or the LPGA Tour, or the television broadcasters and notify them. The Rules Hawks would be happy to oblige in being the "intent police" of the rules on these kinds of things. All sports fans wish they could be the official that overrode the guys and gals actually paid to enforce the rules, so why not create such a thing for golf?
Seemingly every sport has instant replay, including the rodeo that I went to on Saturday. Golf appears to have little need for it, but why not incite a little controversy with it? The rules are the only place where instant replay would even be needed for golf. I mean, we could use it to replay Johnny Miller's dumbest thing said of the day, or Tiger and Steve's fart contests, but the intrusion would otherwise be limited. Perhaps instant replay would be a great way to introduce the shot clock to the ranks of professional golf. Players would only have 60 seconds to execute a shot inside of 250 yards, and just 30 seconds to hit a tee shot. The game would speed up drastically and instant replay could enforce it for us.
The Rules of Golf are just a little too lax on slow play, and a bit too harsh on nonexistent cheating. Why not compromise with instant replay?
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hazards are meant to be penal
That’s the whole point. I agree that in no way did Davis do anything intentional and, clearly, he was not helped. But that’s not the issue. Not testing the condition and not moving loose impediments are the price you pay for hitting there.
But I don’t think testing conditions or moving loose impediments is the issue here. He didn’t really do either. Moving a loose impediment really should mean something else entirely – like just taking up all the reeds around the ball by hand.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
That's precisely the issue
Rule 13-4.c says that a player must not:
Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.
He clearly touched it and he clearly moved it, though, it didn’t come to rest in another location, it just whipped back into place. The point is, that’s the penalty for being there. You don’t get to touch loose impediments. Period.
The issue was whether he touched it in the back swing or not (which he did). He’s allowed to move loose impediments in making a stroke. The back swing is not considered to be part of the stroke.
by Double Eagle on Apr 19, 2010 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
How on earth can the backswing not be considered part of the stroke? I just don’t get why that interpretation is necessary. If anything, Davis had to get through the reeds to swing at all.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The definition of a Stroke,
Per the Rules of Golf:
A “stroke” is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.
It’s seems intuitive that the back swing would be part of the stroke, but there is no question that it is not.
by Double Eagle on Apr 19, 2010 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
The point is not the movement of the club – it’s the movement of the impediment.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
The movement of the club matters
If you move the impediment while making a stroke, it’s legal. If you move the impediment while taking a back swing (not part of the stroke), it’s illegal.
by Double Eagle on Apr 19, 2010 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry RB – you couldn’t be more wrong on this particular point. The game has so much more to it than “the fans” – that’s what makes the game great. Sure, there are some rules that could use some tweaking, but this isn’t one of them.
Why ? VERY simply – the game isn’t about the pros and it’s not about TV. Even if it was, every shot from every player isn’t on camera, recorded “for further review.”
The rule says you can’t touch anything natural in a hazard with the backswing. That’s it. Davis believed he had done something wrong and called Slugger White to be sure. He HOPED he was wrong – but the man’s belief in the rules of the game told him that he would rather lose by the rules than win by breaking one.
You cannot quantify intent – plain and simple.
Faldo called it exactly right – “we view the rules in black and white”. There is no gray area.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
And the intent part is why the rules are black and white, but it’s such a dumb rule. Make ‘em swing on one foot instead. The guy had no way to actually hit the ball properly without hitting the reed. What’s the point of letting a player hit a shot out of the rough if it’s physically impossible? Just make it an automatic unplayable lie and end the tournament.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
swing on one foot ?? HUH ??
Had he re-routed his swing away from the reed on the way back, then hit it on the way through – no penalty. By making contact on the way back, there is the possibility/likelihood of improving the lie coming back to the ball.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
But at that point, there’s almost no way that any player could have performed that shot, except (kind of ironically) Jim Furyk with his crazy old swing.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
oh please – even the worst golfer in the world who realized that he might hit that reed can adjust the backswing – we do it all the time in goofy lies. A ball close to the back of a bunker…a rock or a tree root in the way…a bush or a tree limb with overhanging leaves…
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Dave Pelz teaches a pre-cocked back swing intended to use when the back swing is blocked by a tree or something else in close proximity. TJ Thomasi and Jim Suttie advocate a “no back swing” swing, mostly as a practice drill but which can easily be used on the course. There’s no reason we should expect a Tour pro to not be able to avoid that reed on the way back.
by Double Eagle on Apr 19, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I assumed and hoped that the reed
whilst being virtually horizontal, was attached/still growing. It was only when Slugger White gently pulled the reed out that I realised it was a “loose” impediment". Fine line indeed.
OK thats it
Next time I have a 400 lb boulder in my way hazard or not, I’m having my buddies move that loose impetiment. If it’s ok for TW it’s ok for me. :o)
"pain is only weakness leaving the body"
Tiger touched at least a dozen "loose" impediments
and he sure got penalized.
I personally don't trust most professional athletes and am
happy that MOST know that they need to enforce the rules on themselves or else the media/bloggers will catch them and make them pay for it
Rules
Courtgolf has it right … nothing that might improve the lie in a hazard. Period. Dot. Otherwise, where do the exceptions end?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
Related FanShots on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
