Rickie Fowler Penalty..... Harsh!

[garyinderry]

I am not that bothered about it.

He took a chance dropping on a pretty closely mown slope. If the ball runs into water a few feet away then so be it.

He had other options. It clearly didn't deter him as he did the exact same thing again.

 

[duncan mackie]

Not sure I get what you mean as not relevant. From trying to learn from 'your mistakes' and making sure it didn't happen in the future, then why wouldn't you leave the tee peg in the ground until you are ready to play the shot especially on slopes?

if that simple thing solves this situation of a stupid double penalty, and as a player can not change the rules but he can change what he does in the future to ensure it does not happen again .....

But I do agree that to an 'outsider' what happened to Ricky seems silly and stupid. Some people may wish to defend the status quo as being fair, right and the holy grail of golf rules but.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point.

What I meant by not relevant was that leaving your tee peg, or other marker, in place has no relevance to what you would do if the ball subsequently moved. It wouldn't change what you had to do if it subsequently moved.

Hope this is clearer.

 

[duncan mackie]

Stop being so bloody pedantic! God. Obviously if you drop it and it rolls away you redrop it and then place it, that's already in the rules and is given so I didn't think I had to state all that AGAIN.

I'm sick of this, going round and round in circles. I've stated what I think the rule should be, it probably never will be that, it's just my opinion, which I believe I've made perfectly clear. I'm out.

I'm not going round in circles, nor in any way being pedantic. I am trying very hard to follow your line of thought through to a single comprehensible rule change so that we can then look at the underlying implications ie I'm trying to enter into the meaningful debate you continually state you want, and that no one will give you.

As you clearly don't really want that I can't really see much point in continuing to spend time on it. However, as one last point to illustrate why I'm not being pedantic on this specific point - whilst the bit in bold is obvious it's not what I questioned. In your last post you differentiated between a ball dropped that came to rest within the relief area and one that was dropped, rolled, repeated and then placed. I asked if you mean that, and if so why?

The alternative is that you simply post that you think a rules silly and others respect your opinion for what it is and that's the end of it - and you stop berating people for seemingly ignoring your wonderfully straight forward ultimate and obvious (to you) solution.

 

[patricks148]

I am not that bothered about it.

He took a chance dropping on a pretty closely mown slope. If the ball runs into water a few feet away then so be it.

He had other options. It clearly didn't deter him as he did the exact same thing again.

and if he had hit it straight away rather than buggering around it prob wouldn't have run in the water either

 

[Orikoru]

I'm not going round in circles, nor in any way being pedantic. I am trying very hard to follow your line of thought through to a single comprehensible rule change so that we can then look at the underlying implications ie I'm trying to enter into the meaningful debate you continually state you want, and that no one will give you.

As you clearly don't really want that I can't really see much point in continuing to spend time on it. However, as one last point to illustrate why I'm not being pedantic on this specific point - whilst the bit in bold is obvious it's not what I questioned. In your last post you differentiated between a ball dropped that came to rest within the relief area and one that was dropped, rolled, repeated and then placed. I asked if you mean that, and if so why?

The alternative is that you simply post that you think a rules silly and others respect your opinion for what it is and that's the end of it - and you stop berating people for seemingly ignoring your wonderfully straight forward ultimate and obvious (to you) solution.

It felt like you were being needlessly picky over the minutest details, when I was simply trying to speed things along, that's all. I thought there were some givens and assumptions we could breeze through, but you insist on stating everything in full, to the Nth degree, until I can't even pick out the relevant crux of what we're discussing anymore. You and the others throwing out countless invented scenarios that weren't even in the same ballpark to the Rickie situation, trying to make your points by simply muddying the waters.

 

[Slab]

It felt like you were being needlessly picky over the minutest details, when I was simply trying to speed things along, that's all. I thought there were some givens and assumptions we could breeze through, but you insist on stating everything in full, to the Nth degree, until I can't even pick out the relevant crux of what we're discussing anymore. You and the others throwing out countless invented scenarios that weren't even in the same ballpark to the Rickie situation, trying to make your points by simply muddying the waters.

I think this is the problem (just guessing)
But I think you are trying to solve the unfairness in the fowler situation and only that exact situation, while Duncan and others need your proposed solution to work for millions of round of golf
Otherwise we go to a rule book of a thousand pages as each scenario needs is own rule

Your solution must be watertight for any player placing or dropping under penalty anywhere on the course not just fix Ricky's specific situation

 

[Orikoru]

I think this is the problem (just guessing)
But I think you are trying to solve the unfairness in the fowler situation and only that exact situation, while Duncan and others need your proposed solution to work for millions of round of golf
Otherwise we go to a rule book of a thousand pages as each scenario needs is own rule

Your solution must be watertight for any player placing or dropping under penalty anywhere on the course not just fix Ricky's specific situation

Agree, but in general terms we were talking about a situation where you drop/place and the ball rolls away. And I get people throwing scenarios back like "what if you hit your shot and it stops on the edge of a hazard and then rolls in?" or "what if I drop my club and hit the ball after placing it?" and all sorts of irrelevant unrelated nonsense.

 

[Blue in Munich]

This is a discussion forum where we discuss all aspects of golf. The rules are just one of those many aspects. We are all perfectly entitled to have an opinion on whether a rule is sensible, or lacking in common sense or fairness.

It felt like you were being needlessly picky over the minutest details, when I was simply trying to speed things along, that's all. I thought there were some givens and assumptions we could breeze through, but you insist on stating everything in full, to the Nth degree, until I can't even pick out the relevant crux of what we're discussing anymore. You and the others throwing out countless invented scenarios that weren't even in the same ballpark to the Rickie situation, trying to make your points by simply muddying the waters.

So you're entitled to an opinion unless it doesn't agree with your opinion, right?

You've got someone who is more familiar with the rules than the vast majority here trying to help solve your issue. He understands that you need to be exactly sure what the scenarios are in order to get that right, that's hardly being needlessly picky & it's not deserving of some of the responses given.

Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder if Rickie Fowler is avidly following this or just counting the money...

 

[Orikoru]

So you're entitled to an opinion unless it doesn't agree with your opinion, right?

You've got someone who is more familiar with the rules than the vast majority here trying to help solve your issue. He understands that you need to be exactly sure what the scenarios are in order to get that right, that's hardly being needlessly picky & it's not deserving of some of the responses given.

Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder if Rickie Fowler is avidly following this or just counting the money...

It seemed more like his intention was more to confuse me to the point of backing down. I've never said anyone else can't have their opinion. I've only discussed the point with people who responded to mine.

 

[clubchamp98]

It seemed more like his intention was more to confuse me to the point of backing down. I've never said anyone else can't have their opinion. I've only discussed the point with people who responded to mine.

I do see your point but golfs not fair is it.
If you take relief from some GUR and the ball rolls back in it or you havnt taken full relief , you drop again free.
But it’s a free drop in the first place.
Out of a hazard it’s a penalty. So if it goes back in after coming to rest ??? you need to weigh up your options first.

But I do agree with it was a bit harsh.
But by the letter of the rule it is right .

 

[CliveW]

I think the confusion is caused by the definition of when a ball is "At Rest". If after dropping the ball twice it rolls back into the hazard, you have the opportunity to place it. If you place it and it rolls from it's spot you must try a second time. If your ball again does not stay on that spot you must replace it by placing it on the nearest spot where it will stay at rest. From watching the Fowler incident it looked that he accepted that the ball was "At Rest" and therefore in play.

 

[bobmac]

I think the confusion is caused by the definition of when a ball is "At Rest". If after dropping the ball twice it rolls back into the hazard, you have the opportunity to place it. If you place it and it rolls from it's spot you must try a second time. If your ball again does not stay on that spot you must replace it by placing it on the nearest spot where it will stay at rest. From watching the Fowler incident it looked that he accepted that the ball was "At Rest" and therefore in play.

I think everyone knows the rule and agrees that what happened was correct according to the rules, what the argument discussion is about is if the rule is fair.
Just out of interest, if the rule was changed, how many times would he be allowed another free place if it kept rolling and would there be a time limit on when he had to hit the shot?

 

[duncan mackie]

I think everyone knows the rule and agrees that what happened was correct according to the rules, what the argument discussion is about is if the rule is fair.
Just out of interest, if the rule was changed, how many times would he be allowed another free place if it kept rolling and would there be a time limit on when he had to hit the shot?

It's a discussion from my perspective!

I'm firmly in the camp of seeing an inherent unfairness in what happened to Ricky; specifically that a ball that was placed and subsequently (any time before he hit it) rolled away (anywhere, but specifically outside his designated relief area) is treated fundamentally differently from one that rolls away in a lesser timeframe (such that there's comfort in the argument that it was never really at rest).

However, to evaluate fully the nature of this perceived unfairness, you have to look at the alternatives - after which you move on to consider any other implications (which in the current rules appear to include elements such as speed of play and simplicity, possibly more valid to use parity as well as the usual mantra of consistency).

Somewhat ironic that the relevant (to this discussion) change is the exception introduced to 9.3, which I believe to be very sensible all round. Resolves many past situations that have been discussed her, and elsewhere, over the years and is simple to comprehend and put into practice.
I can see significant merit in widening it's scope to include any ball put back into play - effectively introducing the principle that any ball that moves of its own volition prior to a stroke being made is treated as if it was never at rest. Everything else in the rules, and subsequent options, remain as they are.
The downside/difficulty to this lies in different treatment of a ball accidentally moved on the putting green, and elsewhere on the course ie you bring in judgements as to what caused a ball to move when the player is in proximity that no longer apply on the green.
On balance I believe we should live with, and get to understand the implications of, these new differentials before extending them away from the putting green in such a manner - in most cases you are simply trading the uncertainty of whether a ball really is at rest and stable with what caused it to move (accepting that in Rickys specific case there isn't any suggestion that he caused it to move but had he been standing over it preparing to make his stroke when it moved would people have thought anything different should apply?).

 

[jim8flog]

Could he not just have left his 'tee peg' in the ground whilst looking at his shot etc, then lifted it when he was ready to hit the ball.

Then he would have got another free drop/place and no penalty ? If that's the case then surely that is the way forward when on slopes?

The pegs are only in the ground to show nearest point of relief and limit of the relief area. They have no other significance. A player is not even required to put pegs in the ground but it saves argument.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I do see your point but golfs not fair is it.
If you take relief from some GUR and the ball rolls back in it or you havnt taken full relief , you drop again free.
But it’s a free drop in the first place.
Out of a hazard it’s a penalty. So if it goes back in after coming to rest ??? you need to weigh up your options first.

But I do agree with it was a bit harsh.
But by the letter of the rule it is right .

I'm not sure it was harsh: it was unfortunate in my opinion, but I also believe he brought some of it on himself by the precarious placement to try and gain the maximum advantage. On this occasion backfired. But how many times has Rickie Fowler, or any other pro, been fortunate? The phrase "rub of the green' comes to mind.