Rickie Fowler Penalty..... Harsh!

Perhaps he should have done his green checking before he starts the drop process. He would have been in place and able to hit straight away once it had been placed.
 
Last edited:
Bunkermagnet said:
Perhaps he should have done his green checking before he starts the drop process. He would have been in place and able to place straight away once it had been placed.
Click to expand...
Good idea in theory but given he had no idea where the ball would finish surely not viable. He would have had no idea where to take the read from. I don't like the rule in its current format and it is possible that the rain affected the ball after Fowler deemed it in play which didn't seem fair. He's not seeked to gain an advantage and has done nothing to influence the lie or position of the ball
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Have you even seen the whole incident ?!

The ball did stay there - but because the player himself placed it very precariously to ensure his best lie it rolled back after about 30 seconds maybe longer. If the ball rolled to an advantageous place then he carries on from there - it’s just the run of the green and it’s the players responsibility and the player in this occasion accepted it just like if the ball rolled into the hole for example
Click to expand...
So it didn't stay there. Contradicting yourself. To me it doesn't matter if it rolled back into the lake, or forward onto the green, I'm saying that I think the rule would be better if you just had to replace it with no penalty if it starts rolling at all. I don't know why that isn't the rule.

robinthehood said:
Yeah it's his own fault for hanging about. I'd have hit it pretty sharpish
Click to expand...
I do agree with this. If there was any danger it was going to start rolling I would have just hit the thing.
 
The rule was correctly applied, but I still felt for him given the circumstances and glad, in the end, it didn't affect him getting the victory.
 
I'm just waiting for Bryson Dechambeau to calculate the electromagnetic force present on his ball factoring in the coefficient of wet grass on 1.4567 degree slope with 1004mb air pressure, 87% humidity and 7mph NE wind to determine which blade of grass to place his ball after 2 drops to maximise the chance of it becoming unsettled and rolling in to the hole.
 
cookelad said:
Really?? It's a perfect example of the same rule working both ways
Click to expand...

Once the ball is dropped, not moving, it is in play, doesn't matter what happens after.
Orikoru said:
So it didn't stay there. Contradicting yourself. To me it doesn't matter if it rolled back into the lake, or forward onto the green, I'm saying that I think the rule would be better if you just had to replace it with no penalty if it starts rolling at all. I don't know why that isn't the rule.
Click to expand...

So what if it rolls, you don't realise, then you hit it?

Is it a penalty then, opens a new can of worms every time you bring in a new rule
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Good idea in theory but given he had no idea where the ball would finish surely not viable. He would have had no idea where to take the read from. I don't like the rule in its current format and it is possible that the rain affected the ball after Fowler deemed it in play which didn't seem fair. He's not seeked to gain an advantage and has done nothing to influence the lie or position of the ball
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with that. He drops in quite a specific area and then if he is placing he knows he is placing in a certain place. Walk the green, choose your landing spot etc and then go back and drop. Clearly he didn't expect it to move again so I am not going to condem him for daftness but had he reversed his method he would likely have hit the ball before it moved.

I wish golf rules did look at whether the golfer is gaining an advantage as that would bring more logic to them but unfortunately they do not work that way, as we have seen again and again.
 
Dasit said:
Once the ball is dropped, not moving, it is in play, doesn't matter what happens after.


So what if it rolls, you don't realise, then you hit it?

Is it a penalty then, opens a new can of worms every time you bring in a new rule
Click to expand...
How would you not realise?? Walking round the course with your eyes shut? What a ridiculous thing to ask.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
It’s a well known rule , once the ball is dropped it’s in play and if the ball rolls into the water or the hole of the bunker then that counts - it’s not the first time that it happened and won’t be the last time
Click to expand...
For it to be so well known the sky commentators weren’t sure what was going to happen and had to wait for the ref to say.

It’s a daft rule as who is to say it was actually at rest it could have been moving very slowly and he didn’t notice. I think golf really has some daft rules a lot of which they are working to remove. This would be one, if you take a drop from a hazard and it ends up back in the hazard without you hitting it then drop again
 
It’s the rules for goodness sake

Watch the whole incident and you can even hear Fowler being honest as the day , what was worse was Lee in the commentary suggesting that Fowler should “mix” his words to get out of the penalty - really poor from Lee , close to suggesting he cheats

Fowler was superb - he was spot on through out , he placed the ball said it was at complete rest then was wondering around for over a minute and then it moved. The ref confirmed it all and the player had no problems with it at all - Rob Lee was a joke.

The refs are there for the integrity of the game - just because at times people cry “unfair” doesn’t mean it’s the not the correct way to work.
 
The officials originally gave him a 2 shot penalty. After discussions they revised it to a 1 shot - demonstrates IMO there was definitely enough confusion for the 'rule' to be redefined.
 
HamiltonGuy said:
For it to be so well known the sky commentators weren’t sure what was going to happen and had to wait for the ref to say.

It’s a daft rule as who is to say it was actually at rest it could have been moving very slowly and he didn’t notice. I think golf really has some daft rules a lot of which they are working to remove. This would be one, if you take a drop from a hazard and it ends up back in the hazard without you hitting it then drop again
Click to expand...
That's What the rule is, except your way would have them stand there forever.....
 
drdel said:
The officials originally gave him a 2 shot penalty. After discussions they revised it to a 1 shot - demonstrates IMO there was definitely enough confusion for the 'rule' to be redefined.
Click to expand...
No they didn't. Live at the time the official advised him that it was 1 shot.
That whoever was programming the on screen scoring, or the Sky commentators observations, were confused isn't relevant. To be fair I don't think they were as much confused as not even thinking.
 
HamiltonGuy said:
So who is to say the ball was at rest? The rule is was the ball at rest what if it wasn’t
Click to expand...
The player was asked and agreed the ball was at rest. It's fair to say he may not be so keen to perch the ball so well in such a situation in the future - having had my perfect preferred lie subsequently role into a divot in last weeks comp it's a reminder we all get from time to time (and yes, I'm certain my ball was stationary too...)
 
Talk about talking at cross purposes...

I think the discussion is:
Is the rule harsh?
Yes it is harsh, that a ball placed and now in play can run into the hazard and you get penalised again does seem harsh.
But, the rule was applied correctly, so it was not incorrect. But is the rule fair ?
To keep saying, “yes but the rule says xyz” misses the point.
As a man once said “the law is an ass”

Regarding the rule working both ways:
You can drop it and it end up in a hazard or it could run 100 yds down the fairway- so yes, it can work both ways
 
JamesR said:
Talk about talking at cross purposes...

I think the discussion is:
Is the rule harsh?
Yes it is harsh, that a ball placed and now in play can run into the hazard and you get penalised again does seem harsh.
But, the rule was applied correctly, so it was not incorrect. But is the rule fair ?
To keep saying, “yes but the rule says xyz” misses the point.
As a man once said “the law is an ass”

Regarding the rule working both ways:
You can drop it and it end up in a hazard or it could run 100 yds down the fairway- so yes, it can work both ways
Click to expand...
The voice of reason...
The rule may have been applied correctly but that doesn't mean people can't think it harsh, unfair or even downright daft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top