Tour school two stroke penalty...ouch.

[Sweep]

Is it subjective? I always believed it’s a straight line between your ball and the flag, the fact the ball may bend or curve in the air is immaterial, nobody measures a shot with the flight of the ball built in.

For example. If I am putting and I think my putt moves 20’ right to left, can I stand 20’ right of the hole? I don’t believe so, but I can if my line is always straight. After all I might have read the putt wrong.
If the rule said INTENDED line, would that make a difference? Would this chap have been ok as the bunker was not where he intended the ball to go? I guess not. How could we prove what he intended?
Again for me you penalise if the ball strikes the line you have touched. It solves all the problems.

 

[robinthehood]

To be clear, I understand and accept the rule. People should not step on their line or alter it.
For me, this player was penalised because he raked the bunker, thereby creating or removing an irregularity of surface. The alternative that he was penalised for stepping on his line when playing this kind of shot opens up a whole can of worms as I have tried to demonstrate.
Nevertheless, the officials should have been clear as to how he had breached the rule and the rule needs to be better worded.
I think most would agree that it’s not good when players are penalised for something that did not give them an advantage and / or was not done intentionally and our game suffers from when this occurs.

Omg he got the penalty for improving his line of play. Raking the bunker is just one example of how you can get caught out by this. The fact he got no advantage is not relevant . I get no advantage hitting a ball out of bounds but it still costs me a shot .

 

[Sweep]

1yd either side, the fact the ball may fade, draw, stay straight, the line is still straight.

Just read all the articles I could find on this and it seems he believes he was given the penalty for raking the bunker.

It would be interesting if we could find the official reason as that impacts on the discussion about walking on the line.

I agree. See post 180. They should have been clear.

 

[Sweep]

Omg he got the penalty for improving his line of play. Raking the bunker is just one example of how you can get caught out by this. The fact he got no advantage is not relevant . I get no advantage hitting a ball out of bounds but it still costs me a shot .

What???
We are not debating the out of bounds rule.

 

[robinthehood]

What???
We are not debating the out of bounds rule.

To be honest I don't known what youre talking about. No one holds your view point and saying over and over it's not fair just comes accros as daft. I agree on the face of it the ruling sounds harsh . But when you consider it properly there is no other possible outcome

 

[garyinderry]

Here is a scenario that shows why this rule is necessary and not silly. Even if you successfully clear the bunker with your chip.

Phil mickelson is playing in the open. Its been raining all morning and as he approaches the 16th he finds himself short sided in the exteme. A pot bunker is between him and a tight flag.
The only option he has to get it close is to flop it. He decides he will.
On inspection of the bunker he notices that it it hard packed because of the non stop heavy rain. A nightmare lie if he doesnt succeed in making the flop shot fly the trap.
He decideds to pace out the shot anyway on a direct line. 1 2 3 4yards of bunker and 5 6 7 8 of green.
Rakes the bunker to rid his foot prints and as if by magic, the bunker doesnt look quite so menacing if he doesnt pull off the shot.
Phil as he is known to do puts it to a foot and taps in for par.
Everyone cheers and smiles except for john paramore.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Here is a scenario that shows why this rule is necessary and not silly. Even if you successfully clear the bunker with your chip.

Phil mickelson is playing in the open. Its been raining all morning and as he approaches the 16th he finds himself short sided in the exteme. A pot bunker is between him and a tight flag.
The only option he has to get it close is to flop it. He decides he will.
On inspection of the bunker he notices that it it hard packed because of the non stop heavy rain. A nightmare lie if he doesnt succeed in making the flop shot fly the trap.
He decideds to pace out the shot anyway on a direct line. 1 2 3 4yards of bunker and 5 6 7 8 of green.
Rakes the bunker to rid his foot prints and as if by magic, the bunker doesnt look quite so menacing if he doesnt pull off the shot.
Phil as he is known to do puts it to a foot and taps in for par.
Everyone cheers and smiles except for john paramore.

It’s not nice, but that’s similar to what I posted yesterday about Petrozzi maybe seeing something in the bunker and “pretending” to pace it out etc.
Bad thing is that’s questioning peoples integrity and that’s even more of a minefield.

 

[Sweep]

To be honest I don't known what youre talking about. No one holds your view point and saying over and over it's not fair just comes accros as daft. I agree on the face of it the ruling sounds harsh . But when you consider it properly there is no other possible outcome

You need to take the time and trouble to read the thread and in particular my post #180. There are a number of posters who believe that whilst the rule is good the application of it in this case is unfair and I have shown that by its wording, applying the rule in this way raises potential issues.
I am not going to explain this to you again.
To use your analogy, the tree stake was there. You got a drop because the staked tree interferes with your shot. Your ball went there. You hit your ball out of bounds. You were penalised because you hit your ball out of bounds. Your ball went there.
This guy raked a bunker his ball did not go in. His ball did not go there. He was penalised. Whether it was a fair ruling and if the application of the ruling was in the spirit of the rule is what is being debated here.
It’s a debate. You may disagree with me or not. Your choice. But either way try posting something that adds to the debate instead of being patronising.

 

[Sweep]

Here is a scenario that shows why this rule is necessary and not silly. Even if you successfully clear the bunker with your chip.

Phil mickelson is playing in the open. Its been raining all morning and as he approaches the 16th he finds himself short sided in the exteme. A pot bunker is between him and a tight flag.
The only option he has to get it close is to flop it. He decides he will.
On inspection of the bunker he notices that it it hard packed because of the non stop heavy rain. A nightmare lie if he doesnt succeed in making the flop shot fly the trap.
He decideds to pace out the shot anyway on a direct line. 1 2 3 4yards of bunker and 5 6 7 8 of green.
Rakes the bunker to rid his foot prints and as if by magic, the bunker doesnt look quite so menacing if he doesnt pull off the shot.
Phil as he is known to do puts it to a foot and taps in for par.
Everyone cheers and smiles except for john paramore.

Good post. As I say, that’s fine if he was done for raking the bunker and not walking through it.
It’s the stepping on your line for an airborne shot that causes any issues.
It would be nice to know what they actually did him for.

 

[backwoodsman]

It has been claimed in this thread, many a time, that the rules should be applied with common sense. I'm just waiting for someone to adequately define common sense to an extent that we are all, and always, playing by identical criteria.

If something is a rule, then apply it. If it's a "stupid" rule then canvas to get it changed to something that is not "stupid". But my opinion is that once you start trying to bring in "except's" and "but if's" you are making a rod for your own back. And you lose clarity.

To me "don't improve your lie and don't improve your line of play" is quite straightforward. To me, it is a mockery to then say, "but you can and you won't be penalised if it turns out that it didn't have any significance".

 

[Sweep]

It has been claimed in this thread, many a time, that the rules should be applied with common sense. I'm just waiting for someone to adequately define common sense to an extent that we are all, and always, playing by identical criteria.

If something is a rule, then apply it. If it's a "stupid" rule then canvas to get it changed to something that is not "stupid". But my opinion is that once you start trying to bring in "except's" and "but if's" you are making a rod for your own back. And you lose clarity.

To me "don't improve your lie and don't improve your line of play" is quite straightforward. To me, it is a mockery to then say, "but you can and you won't be penalised if it turns out that it didn't have any significance".

That’s great and I agree. But it’s not that easy.
Eg. Do you believe the ground 6’0” in front of your ball and 1 yard to the left is on your line when you are 165yds away from the pin with water between you and the green?

 

[Deleted member 21258]

That’s great and I agree. But it’s not that easy.
Eg. Do you believe the ground 6’0” in front of your ball and 1 yard to the left is on your line when you are 165yds away from the pin with water between you and the green?

I still don't really understand, why it should not be based on if you do it rather than if you gain an advantage(so basically if you land on/in the section you improved). So your issue would not ever be an issue or even a question, unless he then duffed/hit his shot onto the line he walked and only if he had improved that place. Makes it a lot simpler.

In Garyinderry example, which is a great example, he would have gained an advantage if he had landed in the bunker, then he would get an instant two shot penalty. So the 'fear' factor involved with that shot would still have been there if he had or had not raked the bunker with the extra threat of a 2 shot penalty will be added.

The rule would only be applied when effectively cheating takes place, which to me is simpler and makes more sense?

Maybe I am not thinking this fully though and not thinking of enough situations it can happen.

 

[richbeech]

One of my good friends who I play golf with every week is good friends with Gian. He grew up only 10 minutes from me. We’ve been following and talking about his recent progress with great expectation and anticipation. Make no mistake this guy is the real deal. As disappointing as this is for the lad I don’t think there’s any doubt that he’ll be a European Tour player at some point. He’s only 21 so plenty of time. All this palaver about the rules infraction has detracted away from what he actually did on the day. Had a hole in 1 and birdied 5 of his last 6 holes to put him into a qualifying position. That takes huge cojones!

I haven’t played golf with him myself (although I have been onto my friend to arrange it for some time) but my friend has played with him many times and raves about how good he is. He turned pro off +5! My friend even borrowed his irons once when he had no clubs and I’ve never seen irons like them. The wear mark on every iron was like a perfect 1 pence piece. Unbelievable ball striking! I’m going to keep onto my mate about arranging that game before he really hits the big time. Fingers crossed.

 

[doublebogey7]

I still don't really understand, why it should not be based on if you do it rather than if you gain an advantage(so basically if you land on/in the section you improved). So your issue would not ever be an issue or even a question, unless he then duffed/hit his shot onto the line he walked and only if he had improved that place. Makes it a lot simpler.

In Garyinderry example, which is a great example, he would have gained an advantage if he had landed in the bunker, then he would get an instant two shot penalty. So the 'fear' factor involved with that shot would still have been there if he had or had not raked the bunker with the extra threat of a 2 shot penalty will be added.

The rule would only be applied when effectively cheating takes place, which to me is simpler and makes more sense?

Maybe I am not thinking this fully though and not thinking of enough situations it can happen.

Let me try an example of what could happen if the rule only came into play if a players ball touches a spot that has been improved.
I am a big fader of the ball. I hit my tee shot a little offline and now find I my direct line of play to the pin is hampered by a branch of a tree. I get my branch cutters out and then am successful in playing my normal fade around where the branch would have been. Am I penalised.

 

[drdel]

I'm still of the opinion that context is everything.

IMO the Rule was intended to cover deliberate acts of tapping or pressing down, tramping on vegetation etc to improve one's options/chances; especially on or around the green. Such a deliberate style of walking/behaviour would be obvious to anyone watching. In this golfer's case he did none of this so I believe in this context the penalty was too harsh.

I do not believe Rule 8 (or 13) was meant to prevent normal walking on the fairway or through the green.

 

[Orikoru]

To be honest I don't known what youre talking about. No one holds your view point and saying over and over it's not fair just comes accros as daft. I agree on the face of it the ruling sounds harsh . But when you consider it properly there is no other possible outcome

Many of us shared his viewpoint or similar. Presumably you haven't read this topic all the way through, but in that case it was odd for you to make that assumption.

 

[Orikoru]

Here is a scenario that shows why this rule is necessary and not silly. Even if you successfully clear the bunker with your chip.

Phil mickelson is playing in the open. Its been raining all morning and as he approaches the 16th he finds himself short sided in the exteme. A pot bunker is between him and a tight flag.
The only option he has to get it close is to flop it. He decides he will.
On inspection of the bunker he notices that it it hard packed because of the non stop heavy rain. A nightmare lie if he doesnt succeed in making the flop shot fly the trap.
He decideds to pace out the shot anyway on a direct line. 1 2 3 4yards of bunker and 5 6 7 8 of green.
Rakes the bunker to rid his foot prints and as if by magic, the bunker doesnt look quite so menacing if he doesnt pull off the shot.
Phil as he is known to do puts it to a foot and taps in for par.
Everyone cheers and smiles except for john paramore.

This still makes no difference to my thinking. It's not like a pot bunker suddenly becomes a nice, pleasurable place to be because he gave it a bit of a raking. I don't think it would affect his execution of the shot at all.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I'm still of the opinion that context is everything.

IMO the Rule was intended to cover deliberate acts of tapping or pressing down, tramping on vegetation etc to improve one's options/chances; especially on or around the green. Such a deliberate style of walking/behaviour would be obvious to anyone watching. In this golfer's case he did none of this so I believe in this context the penalty was too harsh.

I do not believe Rule 8 (or 13) was meant to prevent normal walking on the fairway or through the green.

He wasn’t just walking on the fairway or through the green - he was in a Hazard though and he then repaired the hazard meaning if he went into it he would have had a lovely lie.

The current rule is quite clear - can’t improve the line of your shot and he did regardless of if he gained an advantage or not

 

[Orikoru]

It has been claimed in this thread, many a time, that the rules should be applied with common sense. I'm just waiting for someone to adequately define common sense to an extent that we are all, and always, playing by identical criteria.

If something is a rule, then apply it. If it's a "stupid" rule then canvas to get it changed to something that is not "stupid". But my opinion is that once you start trying to bring in "except's" and "but if's" you are making a rod for your own back. And you lose clarity.

To me "don't improve your lie and don't improve your line of play" is quite straightforward. To me, it is a mockery to then say, "but you can and you won't be penalised if it turns out that it didn't have any significance".

You obviously haven't been reading the whole thread because it's been clarified many times by more than one person.

 

[garyinderry]

This still makes no difference to my thinking. It's not like a pot bunker suddenly becomes a nice, pleasurable place to be because he gave it a bit of a raking. I don't think it would affect his execution of the shot at all.

I've only explained why I believe the rule is in place. I've given a perfect example. it doesn't matter if you don't think it would affect his execution of that particular shot. he broke the rule unwittingly. unfortunate but that it how it goes.