This might go in the IMHO section since I’ll have an opinion. But it certainly is mundane and pointless so I’ll start it here.
In Phoenix on what I remember as his first year on the tour, Tiger’s ball came to rest behind a large boulder out in the rough. The boulder wasn’t buried in the ground so it was ruled a “moveable impediment” by an official on the spot. So Tiger’s caddy and a bunch of spectators muscled the thing out of the way so he could shoot.
I was of the opinion then, and still am, that in order to be “moveable” an impediment had to be moveable by the player and his caddy only. After all, a player isn’t allowed to take advice on what club to use, how far it is to the hole, how a putt will break or how fast the green is from anyone but his caddy and his own observations. Spectators and other players aren’t allowed to help him in any way. No one is allowed to walk up to a player and say, “So and so used a 5-iron from here.”, or “So and so hit just left of the pin and it bounced way off the green.”
C’mon, it’s Tiger Woods that we’re talking about. The “rules in the PGA rulebook” don’t apply to him, just like the rule against traveling never applied to Michael Jordan in the NBA.
This stuff happens all the time in golf. It is taking full advantage of the rules. In last years PGA (?), Sergio Garcia’s ball came to rest in a shrub, but he had a clear swing at it. Between the shrub and the green was a TV tower. Sergio claimed that his intention was to hit the ball through the shrub onto the green, but the TV tower was in the way! The rules dude had to make a call - either he had to say that Sergio was lying, or else give him a “line of sight” ruling, which allowed him to drop the ball in a position where the tower was no longer in his line. He was allowed to move the ball, into a clear area. Did he really have any intention of playing that shot? No. Did he use the rule so he would gain an advantage? Hell, yes. Golf is a game of strict rules. Sometimes they work to your detriment (See Craig Stadler, who lost a tournament for kneeling on a towel), sometimes they work to your advantage.
I think that Tiger Woods did exactly the right thing - he asked a tournament official for a ruling, then took advantage of the ruling that was given to him.
Actually Stadler was disqualified a day later when a TV viewer called officials and pointed out that kneeling on a towel might be “building a stance.” The officials checked the tapes and retroactively disqualified him.
I most certainly agree. I have no complaints about Tiger’s actions. Just that I think it was an unbelievable decision.
Sort of the same thing happened with Ernie Els in a US Open that he later won. He drove into the rough. There was a TV tower that he claimed interfered and he was given a drop away from the tower. This improved his lie which had been a bad one. I claim that the tower was clearly visible from the tee - Els made a bad shot into the rough - he should have to play it from there.
Do I play every shot as it lies? Of course not, but then I don’t even keep score any more.
I think the “Decisions on the Rules of Golf” make interesting reading. Note that there is a difference between “moveable obstruction” and “loose impediment”. Tiger’s stone in the OP would be in the latter category, and a decision clearly allows for anybody to help move it, as long as removal does not “unduly delay play”.
Now, if I were in that match with Tiger (I can dream, can’t I?) I would immediately ask for a ruling on how much time he and his crew get before the “undue delay” penalty is assessed. (Loss of hole, or two strokes in stroke play). In my opinion, he shouldn’t get any more than 5 minutes (3 is probably too much) since that’s the time limit for finding a lost ball.
The trouble with trying to sneak in quick posts while at work. I missed an important part of the OP. The ruling now is no doubt in the rules because of that incident. I don’t think it was a good or bad decision either way. Golf’s rules are generally incredibly detailed which leaves little to interpretation, except in rare events like this one. The previous ruling on loose impediments were only that they could be removed, with no restrictions on how. Without restrictions, there are, well, no restrictions, which in this case was agreed with by the USGA beforehand. No advice was given to Tiger on how to play the shot, and there was no assistance being provided to Tiger while the shot was being taken. One of the many things I like about golf though, is that once a decision is made of that nature, it becomes a rule set in stone that applies to all players, pros and hackers alike, not something that is subject to review on a case by case basis. When you flip through the rule book, there are some amazing rules that at first glance seem insane, but they are all in the book now because something new happened, and a ruling had to be made. One I especially like is along the lines of hitting a ball out of bounds, which goes into a rabbit hole, and comes out another hole which is inbounds. As any golfer knows… weird S–T happens out there sometimes.
I guess in a way I do like the ruling actually. As much time as I spend in the woods and places other than the fairway, I need all the help I can get:)
Also, undue delay is a time limit that is set before individual tournaments usually, and isn’t flexible once it is established. The players know how much time they have to do their thing. It’s often remarked that American players have trouble in Europe because they usually have a much longer time limit between shots and holes, and it throws the Americans off of their usual pace.
One thing that should be mentioned is that in golf “local rules” (IE, rules specifically set up by the golf course) can take precedence. In this case specifically, a number of courses (including, I believe the one where this incident happened) have since made local rules that declare decorative boulders on their course an integral part of the course that cannot be moved.
(Now if only they’d do something about those trees I seemd to constantly find myself behind…)
And of course, another rule says that a stone, like Tiger’s, isn’t considered “embedded” if it can be “easily removed.” How’s that for leaving a lot of room for interpretation?
I no longer worry about “unplayable lies” like next to a tree, or a fence, or under a greasewood bush. When you pooch the ball 130 yards at a whack, staying in the fairway is easy. And in case I don’t stay in the fairway I have a foolproof method for getting out of trouble. It’s called the “lob carry.”
[qoute]Actually Stadler was disqualified a day later when a TV viewer called officials and pointed out that kneeling on a towel might be “building a stance.” The officials checked the tapes and retroactively disqualified him.
[/quote]
IIRC, Stadler was DQ’d for signing an incorrect scorecard for not taking a 2-stroke penalty for building his stance. (My own pet peeve, if the on course officials do not call it, then the ruling should stand. When was the last time somebody called in a foul or what have you during a football game and affected the outcome?)
IIRC, Stadler was DQ’d for signing an incorrect scorecard for not taking a 2-stroke penalty for building his stance. (My own pet peeve, if the on course officials do not call it, then the ruling should stand. When was the last time somebody called in a foul or what have you during a football game and affected the outcome?)