This was probably the most uneventful event I've worked yet, as far as rules questions went. In a large part, that was due to the field: It was a scratch event, played from the back tees (6800+ yards), and participants had to have indexes of 5.4 or below. Thus, you had a field of players who kept the ball in play, and had at least a decent understanding of the rules. An easy day for officials!
The first group went off at 8AM, and I played as a marker with the last pair at 10:10. I spent much of the time between hanging around Paul Layrac, a certified rules official who has been my main mentor so far. As I said, there was just plain not much going on. Instead, we got to sit back and enjoy watching guys hit 300+ yard drives, splitting fairways or cutting doglegs.
Turns out the pair I marked for, who play out of Chardonnay, are good friends and frequent partners with my brother in law, who lives on the 10th fairway at Rancho Solano in Fairfield. Everyone knows Jack, and everyone loves Jack. My guys were a little over matched by the distance, and scrambled hard to shoot 75, missing the cut by four. Without putting too much effort into it, because I mostly wanted to stay out of the way of the competitors, I shot 80 with two penalty strokes (hazards), which from 6800+ yards I'll take.
Again, a pretty non-eventful day.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
A Free Drop That Puts You In A Worse Spot Of Bother
For all intents and purposes, my home course is now the Windsor Golf Club in Windsor, CA. There is an interesting spot behind the third green, a shortish par four that I've been able to get within 30 yards of off the tee. Because it is such a short second shot, it's not unusual for a player to blade one over the green. Behind the green, which runs roughly east-west in kind of a banana shape, is a boundary fence roughly ten yards behind the green. Just before the fence is a cart path. Here's a look at it from the middle of the green:
You can see that there is not a lot of room between the cart path and the fence. Here is a better view, from the side:
It may not look like it, but there is actually room to drop on that grass strip behind the cart path and have full relief from the path. However, if you did that, you would be in a position where your back swing would be impacted by the boundary fence, and, of course, there is no free relief from a boundary fence. If you took this relief from the path, then wanted relief from the fence, you would have to declare an unplayable lie and take a stroke penalty. As the path runs parallel to the width of the green, you would probably not be able to go two club-lengths either direction without (a) getting any closer to the hole, or (b) improving your situation to the point where you would actually have a clear swing.
The alternative would be stroke and distance-- go back and play from as close as possible to the spot where you hit the previous shot, the one that ended up on the cart path. After further review, we decided that the best course of action would probably be to play it off the cart path. After all, whose wedges aren't already pretty scuffed up?
As a second year TO, I found this an interesting situation. It underscores the need to make sure players are aware of their options BEFORE they pick up their ball. It's the reason one of the senior officials one told me that the last thing you want to see when you arrive at a situation is the player with his ball in his hand.
You can see that there is not a lot of room between the cart path and the fence. Here is a better view, from the side:
It may not look like it, but there is actually room to drop on that grass strip behind the cart path and have full relief from the path. However, if you did that, you would be in a position where your back swing would be impacted by the boundary fence, and, of course, there is no free relief from a boundary fence. If you took this relief from the path, then wanted relief from the fence, you would have to declare an unplayable lie and take a stroke penalty. As the path runs parallel to the width of the green, you would probably not be able to go two club-lengths either direction without (a) getting any closer to the hole, or (b) improving your situation to the point where you would actually have a clear swing.
The alternative would be stroke and distance-- go back and play from as close as possible to the spot where you hit the previous shot, the one that ended up on the cart path. After further review, we decided that the best course of action would probably be to play it off the cart path. After all, whose wedges aren't already pretty scuffed up?
As a second year TO, I found this an interesting situation. It underscores the need to make sure players are aware of their options BEFORE they pick up their ball. It's the reason one of the senior officials one told me that the last thing you want to see when you arrive at a situation is the player with his ball in his hand.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
A Year Ago At The Masters...
Although the subject has been beaten into the ground, and a number of people have suffered for their actions and views of what happened, here it is again. In the April 7th issue of Sports Illustrated, Alan Shipnuck offers a comprehensive post-mortem on Tiger's now infamous improper drop on the 15th hole of the second round.
I certainly won't claim to be a rules expert, let alone attempt to explain the details of the ruling, but there are several things that seem pretty clear to me.
First: I have no idea what was going through Tiger's mind at the time, but he's played enough golf to know that "as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played" (Rule 26-1) means just that, not two yards back to give himself a more favorable yardage. Brain fart? Probably, but why didn't his caddie, Joe LaCava, who has been around the block a few times, step up? Joe stayed with the bag at the site of the original shot while Tiger walked forward to assess his options. He too, had to know that going back two yards was wrong
Next, what in the world was Fred Ridley thinking? He was alerted and saw the replay. He knew by then that it was questionable. Why did he not consult with the player before he signed his card, which is, as should be, SOP in such a situation, particularly in the highest profile tournament in golf and with the highest profile player in the game? A subplot question, which Shipnuck raises again: Was Ridley influenced by the fact that he and David Eger, who he knew was the originator of the question, have a history? (To put it politely. In a Golf Digest interview later that year, Eger stated "In my view, Ridley's knowledge of The Rules of Golf was, and is, suspect." OUCH!")
Finally, numerous commentators have made the point that it was probably a good thing for Tiger from the standpoint of his legacy that he didn't go on to win, since many would have viewed such a victory as tainted. I am not Tiger's biggest fan, but I'm not sure I completely agree. He did make a mistake, but he was exonerated by the rules committee and allowed to continue. While he probably would have earned even more admiration had he stepped up and withdrawn, he did what he was allowed to do. However, this comes close to blurring the line between golf and the ethic that prevails in pretty much any other professional sport: That you do what you have to do and whatever you can get away with. If it's called, fine, but if it's not, great.
As an aside, two days ago Tiger announced he would not play in the 2014 Masters, and for some time afterwards, due to his back issue and subsequent surgery. Numerous pros have tweeted their support and their wish that he get back to competition as soon as possible. I'm wondering if one will say what they're all probably thinking: Don't mean to wish back surgery on anyone, but, hey, my own chances just went up a whole bunch!
I certainly won't claim to be a rules expert, let alone attempt to explain the details of the ruling, but there are several things that seem pretty clear to me.
First: I have no idea what was going through Tiger's mind at the time, but he's played enough golf to know that "as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played" (Rule 26-1) means just that, not two yards back to give himself a more favorable yardage. Brain fart? Probably, but why didn't his caddie, Joe LaCava, who has been around the block a few times, step up? Joe stayed with the bag at the site of the original shot while Tiger walked forward to assess his options. He too, had to know that going back two yards was wrong
Next, what in the world was Fred Ridley thinking? He was alerted and saw the replay. He knew by then that it was questionable. Why did he not consult with the player before he signed his card, which is, as should be, SOP in such a situation, particularly in the highest profile tournament in golf and with the highest profile player in the game? A subplot question, which Shipnuck raises again: Was Ridley influenced by the fact that he and David Eger, who he knew was the originator of the question, have a history? (To put it politely. In a Golf Digest interview later that year, Eger stated "In my view, Ridley's knowledge of The Rules of Golf was, and is, suspect." OUCH!")
Finally, numerous commentators have made the point that it was probably a good thing for Tiger from the standpoint of his legacy that he didn't go on to win, since many would have viewed such a victory as tainted. I am not Tiger's biggest fan, but I'm not sure I completely agree. He did make a mistake, but he was exonerated by the rules committee and allowed to continue. While he probably would have earned even more admiration had he stepped up and withdrawn, he did what he was allowed to do. However, this comes close to blurring the line between golf and the ethic that prevails in pretty much any other professional sport: That you do what you have to do and whatever you can get away with. If it's called, fine, but if it's not, great.
As an aside, two days ago Tiger announced he would not play in the 2014 Masters, and for some time afterwards, due to his back issue and subsequent surgery. Numerous pros have tweeted their support and their wish that he get back to competition as soon as possible. I'm wondering if one will say what they're all probably thinking: Don't mean to wish back surgery on anyone, but, hey, my own chances just went up a whole bunch!
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Communicate With Your Players!
Just a little side note from the Goodwin Tournament. Pace of play is a big, big issue. I've been following college golf for years, and I've been convinced that the reason pros play so slowly is that nobody made them play faster as collegians. Now, the expected finish time for each hole is right there on every player's scorecard.
When I was introduced to my group on the first tee, I told them, as advised, to pay attention to the pace of play guidelines, and if they ever saw me heading out down a fairway ahead of them, that would be a subtle clue that perhaps they were lagging behind the suggested pace. On Sunday, the fifth tee was set up about thirty yards above and behind the fourth green. Instead of going back to the tee, I headed up the fairway to spot their drives. After they putted out on five, the first two players asked me if they were on pace.
Since they were the second group off the tee, there was virtually no chance they would be in trouble. They were at the time, in fact, fourteen minutes ahead of their expected maximum pace. It took me a moment to connect their question to what I had told them on the first tee. I apologized to them for the unnecessary concern, and informed them that if I was going up to spot in the future I would let them know what I was doing.
Soooo... The moral of the story is.... Stick with, but remember, what you said.
When I was introduced to my group on the first tee, I told them, as advised, to pay attention to the pace of play guidelines, and if they ever saw me heading out down a fairway ahead of them, that would be a subtle clue that perhaps they were lagging behind the suggested pace. On Sunday, the fifth tee was set up about thirty yards above and behind the fourth green. Instead of going back to the tee, I headed up the fairway to spot their drives. After they putted out on five, the first two players asked me if they were on pace.
Since they were the second group off the tee, there was virtually no chance they would be in trouble. They were at the time, in fact, fourteen minutes ahead of their expected maximum pace. It took me a moment to connect their question to what I had told them on the first tee. I apologized to them for the unnecessary concern, and informed them that if I was going up to spot in the future I would let them know what I was doing.
Soooo... The moral of the story is.... Stick with, but remember, what you said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)