Rickie Fowler Penalty..... Harsh!

[robinthehood]

Are you doing this on purpose?? Why can't people understand the difference between knowing a rule and questioning a rule? It's not hard to work out, it really IS simple.

When ever there is a even mildly contentious rules incident I can guarantee you'll here telling us the rules are stupid. Bit it's pretty evident you don't really know them very well or bother to take the time to understand them.

 

[Parsaregood]

When ever there is a even mildly contentious rules incident I can guarantee you'll here telling us the rules are stupid. Bit it's pretty evident you don't really know them very well or bother to take the time to understand them.

You can understand a rule and also find the same rule when applied correctly to be inadequate in some situations, clearly like it was in this case

 

[robinthehood]

It's not, the ball would be deemed in play when the player takes their stance

Oh dear

 

[Orikoru]

When ever there is a even mildly contentious rules incident I can guarantee you'll here telling us the rules are stupid. Bit it's pretty evident you don't really know them very well or bother to take the time to understand them.

No it isn't. When an incident is highly debated like this one, it is played and viewed over and over again until everybody knows it like the back of their hand.

Why are you so afraid to admit that a rule may lack common sense or logic or fairness? The R&A themselves are questioning their rules hence why they are changing them on a gradual basis. But for you they are carved into stone and must be obeyed and never questioned. Ridiculous outdated attitude.

 

[Parsaregood]

Oh dear

Can't think of a ridiculous out for this obviously?

 

[ger147]

Can't think of a ridiculous out for this obviously?

So when I get to my ball I can fish it out of the burn and get a free drop? Because obviously it stopped on the edge of the burn for 20 seconds or so before it finally fell in...

 

[HankMarvin]

Wow I can't believe how may don't understand this simple rule, begs the question what other simple rules do they not understand.

 

[Parsaregood]

So when I get to my ball I can fish it out of the burn and get a free drop? Because obviously it stopped on the edge of the burn for 20 seconds or so before it finally fell in...

No you wouldn't because you haven't already taken a penalty drop, it's not hard to apply that logic is it

 

[OLgolfer]

Wow I can't believe how may don't understand this simple rule, begs the question what other simple rules do they not understand.

Everyone understands the rule. Some of us are questioning it and it’s lack of common sense.

Not very difficult concept to understand, it’s called having a debate

 

[robinthehood]

Can't think of a ridiculous out for this obviously?

I can't believe you can think that's even remotely workable.

 

[ger147]

No you wouldn't because you haven't already taken a penalty drop, it's not hard to apply that logic is it

But you just said you ball is not in play until you take your stance whether you hit it to where it finished or you dropped it there.

My ball finished on the edge of the burn, but before I reached it, it falls into the burn.

As per your statement above, I'm now entitled to a free drop.

 

[HankMarvin]

Everyone understands the rule. Some of us are questioning it and it’s lack of common sense.

Not very difficult concept to understand, it’s called having a debate

Debate all you want the rule is there for a reason and in this situation it was the correct ruling so what's to debate.

 

[robinthehood]

No it isn't. When an incident is highly debated like this one, it is played and viewed over and over again until everybody knows it like the back of their hand.

Why are you so afraid to admit that a rule may lack common sense or logic or fairness? The R&A themselves are questioning their rules hence why they are changing them on a gradual basis. But for you they are carved into stone and must be obeyed and never questioned. Ridiculous outdated attitude.

Not at all, I'd like to know how you'd add common sense to this rule and also keep it fair.

 

[Parsaregood]

But you just said you ball is not in play until you take your stance whether you hit it to where it finished or you dropped it there.

My ball finished on the edge of the burn, but before I reached it, it falls into the burn.

As per your statement above, I'm now entitled to a free drop.

No that would be after taking a penalty drop it would not be in play until taking your stance, a ball is in play, in a hazard or otherwise until you declare that ball to be out of play, or lost or out of bounds

 

[Orikoru]

But you just said you ball is not in play until you take your stance whether you hit it to where it finished or you dropped it there.

My ball finished on the edge of the burn, but before I reached it, it falls into the burn.

As per your statement above, I'm now entitled to a free drop.

No. We are specifically talking about incidents like the Rickie one. Obviously. Where he took a drop and then placed it, but then it dropped in the water again. Nothing to do with a shot that went near the water and then stopped and then rolled in. That's a completely different situation.

 

[OLgolfer]

Debate all you want the rule is there for a reason and in this situation it was the correct ruling so what's to debate.

Are you really this slow..? It’s like talking to a brick wall

What’s to debate... an alternative to the current rule...

 

[ger147]

No that would be after taking a penalty drop it would not be in play until taking your stance, a ball is in play, in a hazard or otherwise until you declare that ball to be out of play, or lost or out of bounds

I was replying to what you said i.e. in post #100 you stated a dropped ball was not treated differently to a ball that was hit there and you also said the dropped ball was not in play until you take your stance, so if both are treated the same then your logic dictates the ball hit there is also not in play after it initially comes to rest until you take your stance.

 

[robinthehood]

No. We are specifically talking about incidents like the Rickie one. Obviously. Where he took a drop and then placed it, but then it dropped in the water again. Nothing to do with a shot that went near the water and then stopped and then rolled in. That's a completely different situation.

Its exactly like that. Why do you think that a ball placed or dropped in to play shpuld have different status to a ball that was struck in to play

 

[Orikoru]

Not at all, I'd like to know how you'd add common sense to this rule and also keep it fair.

How many times do we have to say it? Seriously it's been said by me and Parsaregood multiple times now. It seems like you just skip past it because in your mind the rules were written by God Himself and must never be questioned.

One more time, let's see if you can get it...

If you take a drop, and/or subsequently place the ball, and then after a short period where you have not taken your stance to play your next shot, it rolls again - you retake the drop / replace the ball.

There it is. Simple.

 

[Orikoru]

Its exactly like that. Why do you think that a ball placed or dropped in to play shpuld have different status to a ball that was struck in to play

Because otherwise it might roll into the water again before you've even tried to play it and you get punished twice unfairly.