JT Ball near drain in US Open

[Troymcclure]

Did anyone see JT fat his shot yesterday after choosing not to call a referee to ask for possible relief?

He then had a bit of an expletive strewn rant that other people would “lie” about being able to hit it and he was “just trying to be a good person”.

Raised some interesting questions for me:-

If you think a rule would go in your favour but you think it’s unfair, would you elect not to use the ruling?

Did he have any right to have a strop when he himself said it would be a “lie” to claim relief?

The commentators said he acted with integrity. Of course in golf, as in life, we should all strive to act with integrity but is that the right word for electing not to use the rules to your advantage?

 

[Foxholer]

Didn't see the incident, but always worth a check - with no expectation of getting a favourable ruling. Answering any questions the ref poses honestly is the key.
If a rule would go in your favour, it's not unfair imo.
The strop was probably more about his failure to execute the shot than about the ruling situation.
I think if he asked a ref for a ruling - and accepted whatever that ruling was - he'd have been acting with integrity too!
I'm not sure that an expletive strewn rant was 'acting with integrity' though! More than likely not imo!

 

[Imurg]

To be honest the drain wasn't interfering with either the stance or the swing....
When I saw his ball roll towards the drain I thought he could have done with an extra foot of roll to be on it rather than next to it.
I probably wouldn't be looking for relief in that situation and I agree with JT that an awful lot of people would..

 

[Troymcclure]

I probably wouldn't be looking for relief in that situation

I wouldn’t in the monthly medal but I would in the US Open

 

[Imurg]

If you were in the US Open?

What difference does it make?
The ball was not on the drain..if I remember it was about a foot from it.
His stance was not affected by the drain...what would be the reason for claiming relief..?

 

[jim8flog]

I did not see the incident but to answer your question - when relief is available according to the rules and it improves my situation I will take it.

I do not understand people who say "using the rules to your advantage is cheating" or similar.

 

[Troymcclure]

What difference does it make?
The ball was not on the drain..if I remember it was about a foot from it.
His stance was not affected by the drain...what would be the reason for claiming relief..?

Not claiming, asking. Takes 5 minutes if ref is with every group. Asking someone whose job it is to know and interpret the rules better than I. Someone who will administer the rules the same way for everyone in the field. In the Medal, just get on with it because it won’t make much difference probably and even if it did, $ and a Major is not at stake.

 

[Troymcclure]

Oh and the reason I think there’s a possibility of relief is the fact that the drain was at the bottom of a hollow, and his ball was on the slope of the hollow. Now if the hollow was man made for the drain then I assume relief is in order. But if it’s a natural hollow then not. In actual fact I think the latter was the case. But I’d still ask the expert.

 

[Colin L]

Oh and the reason I think there’s a possibility of relief is the fact that the drain was at the bottom of a hollow, and his ball was on the slope of the hollow. Now if the hollow was man made for the drain then I assume relief is in order. But if it’s a natural hollow then not. In actual fact I think the latter was the case. But I’d still ask the expert.

You don't get relief from your ball being on the slope down to a drain, sprinkler or whatever.

 

[AmandaJR]

I thought he was out of order to call his fellow pros liars!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I thought he was out of order to call his fellow pros liars!

The issue is we all know there would be pros out there trying to get relief - we have all seen it before

 

[Troymcclure]

You don't get relief from your ball being on the slope down to a drain, sprinkler or whatever.

Why did Rory get relief from the sprinkler heads on the 1st, if anyone saw it?

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I actually had a fairly similar situation in a match the other week. So same same, bar the fact I wasn’t playing the US Open… ?

Was thinking it was interfering with my follow through but didn’t want to be “that guy” and ask my opponent about relief. Worked out nicely anyway as I put the ball to about a foot and him giving the putt.

 

[jim8flog]

Why did Rory get relief from the sprinkler heads on the 1st, if anyone saw it?

Ps a lot of what was there were not sprinkler heads but drainage holes with covers.

The rules are very clear and straight forward (probably quoted already)

93
Rule 16 – Relief from Abnormal Course Conditions (Including Immovable Obstructions),
a. When Relief Is Allowed
(1) Meaning of Interference by Abnormal Course Condition. Interference exists when any one of these is true:
• The player’s ball touches or is in or on an abnormal course condition,
• An abnormal course condition physically interferes with the player’s area of intended stance or area of intended swing, or


You get relief in the absence of any special relief granted or denied by the terms of the competition or Local Rule. If the drain is blocked and there is an accumulation of water as a result you would get relief under the same rule.

Every pairing at the US Open had their own qualified referee with them and if there was any doubt it would have been easy to call them over.

 

[salfordlad]

I thought he was out of order to call his fellow pros liars!

Agree, even though it is true on occasion.

 

[salfordlad]

You don't get relief from your ball being on the slope down to a drain, sprinkler or whatever.

Agree, and it is my recollection that this was in black and white somewhere but I can't remember where - possibly in the pre-2019 book. Can anyone remember the reference?

An issue I've seen in places is sprinkler surrounds subsiding over time, producing a problem of nasty interference in the fairway with the subsidence even though no interference with the ACC. This is something the alert Committee should correct. It is also highly unlikely on the courses hosting events like the US Open, which are scrutinized very closely for dodgy or unfair ground.

 

[Colin L]

Agree, and it is my recollection that this was in black and white somewhere but I can't remember where - possibly in the pre-2019 book. Can anyone remember the reference?

I had the same recollection .... and the same memory block. Possibly a Decision but I'm away from home and parted from my old Decisions book.

 

[salfordlad]

I had the same recollection .... and the same memory block. Possibly a Decision but I'm away from home and parted from my old Decisions book.

I spent a little quality time with my Decisions book but didn't find it, possibly because I've not got the Decisions book partner open (red wine).

 

[Troymcclure]

Ps a lot of what was there were not sprinkler heads but drainage holes with covers.

The rules are very clear and straight forward (probably quoted already)

Whatever they were they were all well to the right of his ball and he’s right-handed?

 

[Troymcclure]

Every pairing at the US Open had their own qualified referee with them and if there was any doubt it would have been easy to call them over.

Which is what I said I thought JT should have done. But some, including all the commentators, thought it better he acted with “integrity”.