The Masters

[TRF_Cymro]

Gutted for Angel but Scott was something else. Brilliant end to the Masters.

 

[Tony Manx]

It was a great last hour but somehow I feel that this Masters will be more remembered for Woods' cheating and being allowed to get away with it rather than the real stars.....Scott, Cabrera and Day who were all fantastic and the young Chinese guy about whom we will hear lots more over the next few years!. Sincerely hope Day has his day in the sun soon!!

 

[munstermuffin]

€260 for Scott at 40/1 a beauty of €5 e/w bet

 

[smartcooky]

It was a great last hour but somehow I feel that this Masters will be more remembered for Woods' cheating and being allowed to get away with it rather than the real stars.....Scott, Cabrera and Day who were all fantastic and the young Chinese guy about whom we will hear lots more over the next few years!. Sincerely hope Day has his day in the sun soon!!

Really? I don't think he cheated at all, and should never have been assessed that penalty.

The rule is that you have to drop the ball for the replayed shot as near as possible to where you thought you took the first shot., and no closer to the hole

So how close does he have to be?

 

[munstermuffin]

I thought regards the penalty issue. You could keep going back as long as you kept the line

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I thought regards the penalty issue. You could keep going back as long as you kept the line

No, it's either the drop zone or the same place as the shot was taken for a yellow/water hazard. You're thinking of a red/lateral water hazard.

 

[Tony Manx]

Really? I don't think he cheated at all, and should never have been assessed that penalty.

The rule is that you have to drop the ball for the replayed shot as near as possible to where you thought you took the first shot., and no closer to the hole


So how close does he have to be?

The affair blew up as Woods in his post round interview categorically stated that he had deliberately taken the ball back a further two yards from where he knew he had played the first shot to better his chances in playing the shot again.

He is supposed to play as near as possible to where he played his first shot and, by doing what he did, by his own admission, he was breaking the rules. The Committee decided that it did not warrant disqualification solely on the gorund that he did not remember/know the rules..........so if I go out in the club medal and do the same thing and claim I did not know the rules, will the club committee let me off if I sign my card without including a penalty...............you betcha?

 

[dasNdanger]

The affair blew up as Woods in his post round interview categorically stated that he had deliberately taken the ball back a further two yards from where he knew he had played the first shot to better his chances in playing the shot again.

He is supposed to play as near as possible to where he played his first shot and, by doing what he did, by his own admission, he was breaking the rules. The Committee decided that it did not warrant disqualification solely on the gorund that he did not remember/know the rules..........so if I go out in the club medal and do the same thing and claim I did not know the rules, will the club committee let me off if I sign my card without including a penalty...............you betcha?

Yeah, this. If Woods was 'clueless' about the difference I don't think there would be a penalty. But he admitted to knowingly doing it to seek an advantage. That IS cheating. And I'm glad the cocky li'l bugger didn't win. (Am I allowed to call him that?)


das

 

[munstermuffin]

No, it's either the drop zone or the same place as the shot was taken for a yellow/water hazard. You're thinking of a red/lateral water hazard.

Cheers man not very good with all rules of golf and was wondering.

 

[smartcooky]

No, it's either the drop zone or the same place as the shot was taken for a yellow/water hazard. You're thinking of a red/lateral water hazard.

Correct, it wasn't a lateral water hazard. Woods went into a ditch across the front of the green, and it was marked with yellow lines indicating that it was a "hazard".

However...

[TEXTAREA]When your ball comes to rest within any water hazard, you always have the option of playing the ball from its at rest position. That is to say, if the ball is barely in the water, you might opt to strike the ball from right where it is.

Or, you may manually move the ball to a more favorable striking location and accept a one-stroke penalty.

Now, where may you move the ball to?

Well, you are permitted to walk back to the location of the shot that propelled your ball into the drink in the first place. Essentially, this is "stroke and distance" and means that if your second shot is the one that went into the water, you get to try that shot again... but now you're shooting your fourth!

Also look for a designated "drop area" typically situated along one edge of the hazard. There'll be a sign or white lime circle on the grass where you are expected to drop your ball and continue play.

If no designated "drop area" exists, you also have the option of dropping the ball within two club lengths of a point along the margin of the hazard... that point being where your ball actually first flew, bounded or rolled into the water hazard.

If the water hazard is not a lateral water hazard, you have another option. You may drop the ball as in the above paragraph, but you are not limited to two club lengths. In other words, you may continue walking away from the margin of the water hazard in a line directly away from the pin any arbitrary distance and drop your ball.[/TEXTAREA]

The highlighted part is what Woods did. He was entitled to do that, because the hazard was not a lateral water hazard...

[TEXTAREA]Most water hazards are situated within the fairway or actually cross the fairway (such as a stream). But some water hazards line the sides of the fairway and are called lateral water hazards for that reason. In general, the distinction is that lateral water hazards are those which you cannot drop a ball behind, should your ball land in it.[/TEXTAREA]

[TEXTAREA] RULE 26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

c. As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than
(i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or
(ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.

When proceeding under this Rule, the player may lift and clean his ball or substitute a ball.[/TEXTAREA]

The only way that what Woods did was illegal was if this particular water hazard had been deemed a lateral water hazard (it certainy was NOT lateral under the Rules of Golf), and that could have been promulgated in several places, including;

1. The "local rules" for Augusta National
2. Conditions of the tournament
3. Conditions of the USGA/PGA (or which ever body under which the tournament is run)

 

[Tony Manx]

Correct, it wasn't a lateral water hazard. Woods went into a ditch across the front of the green, and it was marked with yellow lines indicating that it was a "hazard".

However...

[TEXTAREA]When your ball comes to rest within any water hazard, you always have the option of playing the ball from its at rest position. That is to say, if the ball is barely in the water, you might opt to strike the ball from right where it is.

Or, you may manually move the ball to a more favorable striking location and accept a one-stroke penalty.

Now, where may you move the ball to?

Well, you are permitted to walk back to the location of the shot that propelled your ball into the drink in the first place. Essentially, this is "stroke and distance" and means that if your second shot is the one that went into the water, you get to try that shot again... but now you're shooting your fourth!

Also look for a designated "drop area" typically situated along one edge of the hazard. There'll be a sign or white lime circle on the grass where you are expected to drop your ball and continue play.

If no designated "drop area" exists, you also have the option of dropping the ball within two club lengths of a point along the margin of the hazard... that point being where your ball actually first flew, bounded or rolled into the water hazard.

If the water hazard is not a lateral water hazard, you have another option. You may drop the ball as in the above paragraph, but you are not limited to two club lengths. In other words, you may continue walking away from the margin of the water hazard in a line directly away from the pin any arbitrary distance and drop your ball.[/TEXTAREA]

The highlighted part is what Woods did. He was entitled to do that, because the hazard was not a lateral water hazard...

[TEXTAREA]Most water hazards are situated within the fairway or actually cross the fairway (such as a stream). But some water hazards line the sides of the fairway and are called lateral water hazards for that reason. In general, the distinction is that lateral water hazards are those which you cannot drop a ball behind, should your ball land in it.[/TEXTAREA]

[TEXTAREA] RULE 26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

c. As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than
(i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or
(ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.

When proceeding under this Rule, the player may lift and clean his ball or substitute a ball.[/TEXTAREA]

The only way that what Woods did was illegal was if this particular water hazard had been deemed a lateral water hazard (it certainy was NOT lateral under the Rules of Golf), and that could have been promulgated in several places, including;

1. The "local rules" for Augusta National
2. Conditions of the tournament
3. Conditions of the USGA/PGA (or which ever body under which the tournament is run)

As usual, comprehensive and thorough....................all I can add is that no one, his supporters or his detractors, has actually argued that Woods was correct in what he did, not even Woods himself, so guess one of the last three promulgations applies.

 

[munstermuffin]

Interesting now the argument about the putter is coming up again

 

[smartcooky]

Interesting now the argument about the putter is coming up again

Interesting that the USGA and the R&A have made it clear they want the long putters banned, and the USPGA have made it clear that they have no intention of bannin them?

I think a **** fight is about to ensue, and if neither side backs down, we could see the ridiculous situation where there were two sets of rules in force.

The PGA Tour would allow them, the European Tour and any tournament under the control of the USGA would not, near enough and pro/Am split


Masters (banned)
US Open (banned)
PGA Championship (allowed)
Players Championship (allowed)
The Open Championship (banned)

Ultimately, you could see USGA and R&A tournaments boycotted by some players from the PGA

 

[Tony Manx]

Ultimately, you could see USGA and R&A tournaments boycotted by some players from the PGA

Cannot see players missing out on three out of four majors (I know people are pushing for the Players to become one but not for me as a traditionalist!!) and Els has already said that this is his last major with one......think that the others will follow suit eventually but the manufacturers will not let it lie as they would see an income source fade away!!

 

[munstermuffin]

Would it be possible to have a breakaway like in darts - 1 group is PDC a breakaway from BDO