139 replies to this topic

[Willie Malay]

Again, not a Tiger fan at all here.But I have an open mind. Here's my take and what I'd have said to the rules official if I were Tiger: The "normal soil" in that region is sandy. So, the ball was in "normal soil" for that area(obviously there was normal flora growing out of it), so it wasn't "sand" ". Just my take.

[kevcarter]

Where does "normal soil come from?

a. Relief for Embedded Ball
Rule 25-2 provides relief, without penalty, for a ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in any closely mown area through the green. On the putting green, a ball may be lifted and damage caused by the impact of a ball may be repaired (Rules 16-1b and c). When permission to take relief for an embedded ball anywhere through the green would be warranted, the following Local Rule is recommended:

“Through the green, a ball that is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground may be lifted, without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.

Exceptions:

1.    A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely mown.

2.    A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if interference by anything other than the condition covered by this Local Rule makes the stroke clearly impracticable.

[MileHighClub]

There is no gray area here.  He should have known that he wasn't allowed free relief.  He should have taken an unplayable lie instead.

[HAWKEYE77]

No gray area at all, and the subject is already well discussed in the existing tournament thread where the above rule was posted, no need for another thread being started.

Edited by HAWKEYE77, 18 January 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[vtnerf]

Willie Malay, on 18 January 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Again, not a Tiger fan at all here.But I have an open mind. Here's my take and what I'd have said to the rules official if I were Tiger: The "normal soil" in that region is sandy. So, the ball was in "normal soil" for that area(obviously there was normal flora growing out of it), so it wasn't "sand" ". Just my take.

This situation isn't too far from the Dustin Johnson situation. He should have known and was wrong. And NO, Martin does not hold any responsibility in this matter.

[Skaffa77]

HAWKEYE77, on 18 January 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

No gray area at all, and the subject is already well discussed in the existing tournament thread where the above rule was posted, no need for another thread being started.

Ironically, both Tiger and Martin missed that memo.  Oh well...Tiger should have known better or asked for a rules official if there was any doubt.  

I'm trying to imagine what tournament officals were thinking before the end of this round...

"Dang...Rory is gonna miss the cut...oh well at least Tiger will still be around for the weekend."

Edited by Skaffa77, 18 January 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[Willie Malay]

Ok if there is no gray area, there is no gray area. That is fine. If you lived in an area with sandy soil you will understand what I'm talking about. It's just "the soil" that is indigenous to that area. I think it should be considered "soil" but that is just me. If the rules are so that there is no gray area, then that is fine. That is the rule.

[MileHighClub]

Willie Malay, on 18 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Ok if there is no gray area, there is no gray area. That is fine. If you lived in an area with sandy soil you will understand what I'm talking about. It's just "the soil" that is indigenous to that area. I think it should be considered "soil" but that is just me. If the rules are so that there is no gray area, then that is fine. That is the rule.

It comes down to whether it is in a closely mown area or not.

[HAWKEYE77]

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Willie Malay, on 18 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Ok if there is no gray area, there is no gray area. That is fine. If you lived in an area with sandy soil you will understand what I'm talking about. It's just "the soil" that is indigenous to that area. I think it should be considered "soil" but that is just me. If the rules are so that there is no gray area, then that is fine. That is the rule.

It comes down to whether it is in a closely mown area or not.

No . . the rule for their competition extends beyond closely mown.

[jnradioactive]

Tiger just figured he was playing by Tiger's rules, like a 1000lb boulder being a "loose impediment"

[MileHighClub]

HAWKEYE77, on 18 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Willie Malay, on 18 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Ok if there is no gray area, there is no gray area. That is fine. If you lived in an area with sandy soil you will understand what I'm talking about. It's just "the soil" that is indigenous to that area. I think it should be considered "soil" but that is just me. If the rules are so that there is no gray area, then that is fine. That is the rule.

It comes down to whether it is in a closely mown area or not.

No . . the rule for their competition extends beyond closely mown.

Not true.


a. Relief for Embedded Ball
Rule 25-2 provides relief, without penalty, for a ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in any closely mown area through the green. On the putting green, a ball may be lifted and damage caused by the impact of a ball may be repaired (Rules 16-1b and c). When permission to take relief for an embedded ball anywhere through the green would be warranted, the following Local Rule is recommended:

“Through the green, a ball that is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground may be lifted, without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.

Exceptions:

1. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not CLOSELY MOWN..

2. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if interference by anything other than the condition covered by this Local Rule makes the stroke clearly impracticable.



Don't know if you saw it or not, but the sand was overgrown with thick vegetation.

Edited by MileHighClub, 18 January 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[kevcarter]

HAWKEYE77, on 18 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Willie Malay, on 18 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Ok if there is no gray area, there is no gray area. That is fine. If you lived in an area with sandy soil you will understand what I'm talking about. It's just "the soil" that is indigenous to that area. I think it should be considered "soil" but that is just me. If the rules are so that there is no gray area, then that is fine. That is the rule.

It comes down to whether it is in a closely mown area or not.

No . . the rule for their competition extends beyond closely mown.

You need to read the local rule I posted again. :-)

[teejaywhy]

Willie Malay, on 18 January 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Again, not a Tiger fan at all here.But I have an open mind. Here's my take and what I'd have said to the rules official if I were Tiger: The "normal soil" in that region is sandy. So, the ball was in "normal soil" for that area(obviously there was normal flora growing out of it), so it wasn't "sand" ". Just my take.

Very Clintonesque.

[Willie Malay]

IS

[HAWKEYE77]

kevcarter, on 18 January 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

HAWKEYE77, on 18 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Willie Malay, on 18 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Ok if there is no gray area, there is no gray area. That is fine. If you lived in an area with sandy soil you will understand what I'm talking about. It's just "the soil" that is indigenous to that area. I think it should be considered "soil" but that is just me. If the rules are so that there is no gray area, then that is fine. That is the rule.

It comes down to whether it is in a closely mown area or not.

No . . the rule for their competition extends beyond closely mown.

You need to read the local rule I posted again. :-)

I did read it. The RULE extends beyond closely mown areas. The RULE when applied to areas beyond closely mown areas, for example, off the fairway, says no relief if sand.

Nothing wrong with my reading skills.

[PingEye2]

The rules of golf give relief for an embedded ball in closely mown areas only; however, all the professional tours worldwide extend his rule to through the green with the exception of sand. Hence the belief he was entitled to relief.

[Dead Solid Perfect]

I don't see how after the fact when Kymer agreed with it was embedded. Tiger's reaction of -2 thru last 5 showed heart.

[MileHighClub]

Here is the explanation posted on the USGA website:

OUR EXPERTS EXPLAIN
Be the first to rate this article.
Embedded Ball In Sand Costs Tiger Woods
Posted: 1/18/2013

By John Van der Borght, Manager Rules Communications
Why Was Tiger Woods Penalized Two Strokes For An Embedded Ball In The Sand During The Second Round Of The Abu Dhabi HSBC Championshp?
Sand and the Rules of Golf again made headlines on Jan. 18 at the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship.  Last year, Rory McIlroy had a run-in with sand on his line of play which cost him a penalty of two strokes (to read about that, Click Here). During the second round of this year’s championship, Tiger Woods incurred a two-stroke penalty on the fifth hole for mistakenly taking relief when his ball was embedded in a sandy area off the fairway.

Rule 25-2 (Embedded Ball) entitles a player to relief from a ball which is embedded in its own pitch-mark in a closely mown area through the green. The Rules of Golf consider “closely mown” to mean “any area of the course … cut to fairway height or less”. The Rules of Golf include a Local Rule found in Appendix I that is used by most tours and courses around the world, including the European Tour which sanctions the Abu Dhabi event. This Local Rule extends relief for balls embedded in their own pitch to all other areas through the green, but it includes two exceptions. Unfortunately Woods’ situation was covered by the first exception.  The wording of this Local Rule is as follows:

Through the green, a ball that is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground may be lifted, without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.

Exceptions:

1. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely mown.

2. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if interference by anything other than the condition covered by this Local Rule makes the stroke clearly impracticable.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF LOCAL RULE:

Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play – Two strokes.

Woods’ ball had come to rest in an area of sand behind some low bushes. The ball was embedded in the sand, but since the ball was embedded in sand in an area which was not “closely mown,” the Local Rule did not apply. And by taking relief, he incurred a two-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2a for moving his ball in play and failing to replace it.

Had Woods consulted with an official before proceeding on his own, he would have been informed that while relief could not be taken under the Local Rule, he had two options: play the ball as it lay without penalty or declare it unplayable and taken relief with a one-stroke penalty.

A European Tour referee informed Woods of the infraction on the 11th hole. He then birdied three holes to get back to the cut line, but a bogey on the 17th hole left him one stroke off the cut.

[mothra87]

This site gives a good explanation and probable wording of the Local Rule:
http://pgamga.com/ha...pLocalRules.asp



Most players have a misconception about an embedded ball. This is from USGA Rules Official Doug Hoffman:
"Many golfers believe that when a ball embeds in its own pitch-mark, they are entitled to relief without penalty. In most cases, this is true, but a player must know the rules in effect at the time; in addition, the place where the ball has become embedded is critical."
In your question, the player's ball has embedded in the green; thus, this case would be covered by Rule 16: Putting Green. Under Rule 16-1b, the player is entitled to "lift and, if desired, clean" the ball. In addition, under Rule 16-1c, the player may repair old hole plugs and ball marks. Thus, when the player lifts the ball, he may repair the ball mark. However, after repairing the mark, the ball "shall be replaced on the spot from which it was lifted." So, your friend did not follow the rules completely when he placed the ball next to the divot. (Under the rules, this would be a two-stroke penalty in stroke play or a loss of hole in match play!)
However, many people mistakenly believe that they are entitled to relief without penalty should the ball become embedded anywhere on the course, except in a water hazard or bunker. This is true ONLY if the Local Rule permitting such has been adopted. Under Rule 25-2, for a player to obtain relief without penalty, the ball must be "embedded in its own pitch-mark in any closely-mown area through the green." As the rule continues to say, "Closely-mown area means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less." This means an embedded ball in the rough (but not in a walk path) must be played as it lies.
Having said all of this, it is very common for the Committee in charge of the competition (or course, in the case of normal play) to adopt the Local Rule found in Appendix I of the Rules Book. The wording the USGA suggests for this is as follows: "Through the green, a ball which is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground, other than sand, may be lifted without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green." (The Rules define through the green as "the whole area of the course except (a) the teeing ground and putting green of the hole being played; and (b) all hazards on the course.") One final note about this, a player cannot repair the pitch-mark before the shot is played."

Edited by mothra87, 18 January 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[puttingmatt]

Looks like this rules infraction will send Woods packing ,
Is this true ???

[Frankensteins Monster]

He's already at Torrey Pines.

[tbowles411]

puttingmatt, on 18 January 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Looks like this rules infraction will send Woods packing ,
Is this true ???

He missed the cut by a stroke.  The two shot penalty cost him.

[puttingmatt]

tbowles411, on 18 January 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

puttingmatt, on 18 January 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Looks like this rules infraction will send Woods packing ,
Is this true ???

He missed the cut by a stroke.  The two shot penalty cost him.

Wow !!

[kellygreen]

jnradioactive, on 18 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Tiger just figured he was playing by Tiger's rules, like a 1000lb boulder being a "loose impediment"

Under the rules at the time, that stone WAS a loose impediment.

If the course designer wanted otherwise, he should have embedded it in the ground.

...and there was nothing in the rules that stated that a loose impediment could only be of a certain size.

In short. What he did was perfectly legal, and a very smart application of the rules.

[spitfisher]

jnradioactive, on 18 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Tiger just figured he was playing by Tiger's rules, like a 1000lb boulder being a "loose impediment"

That an he didn't use a rules official for this ruling, he wasn't playing well, probably took his appearence check, flew home by now and is currently working on his "process".

[MileHighClub]

kellygreen, on 18 January 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

jnradioactive, on 18 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Tiger just figured he was playing by Tiger's rules, like a 1000lb boulder being a "loose impediment"

Under the rules at the time, that stone WAS a loose impediment.

If the course designer wanted otherwise, he should have embedded it in the ground.

...and there was nothing in the rules that stated that a loose impediment could only be of a certain size.

In short. What he did was perfectly legal, and a very smart application of the rules.

Actually, I believe it would still be considered a loose impediment and it would still be legal to move it as long as it hasn't been embedded..  Definitely a smart application of the rules.

[lumberman2462]

The difference between the Euro Tour and the PGA Tour.......Tiger has all kinds of rules officials wandering around his group.  Amazed he didn't ask for a ruling.

One thing is for certain - Whatever Abu Dhabian Sheik put up the money for Tiger and Rory's appearance for surely didn't get his money(s) worth.  

[jnradioactive]

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

kellygreen, on 18 January 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

jnradioactive, on 18 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Tiger just figured he was playing by Tiger's rules, like a 1000lb boulder being a "loose impediment"

Under the rules at the time, that stone WAS a loose impediment.

If the course designer wanted otherwise, he should have embedded it in the ground.

...and there was nothing in the rules that stated that a loose impediment could only be of a certain size.

In short. What he did was perfectly legal, and a very smart application of the rules.

Actually, I believe it would still be considered a loose impediment and it would still be legal to move it as long as it hasn't been embedded..  Definitely a smart application of the rules.

Definitely against the spirit of the rule if not the letter of the rule

[kellygreen]

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

kellygreen, on 18 January 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

jnradioactive, on 18 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Tiger just figured he was playing by Tiger's rules, like a 1000lb boulder being a "loose impediment"

Under the rules at the time, that stone WAS a loose impediment.

If the course designer wanted otherwise, he should have embedded it in the ground.

...and there was nothing in the rules that stated that a loose impediment could only be of a certain size.

In short. What he did was perfectly legal, and a very smart application of the rules.

Actually, I believe it would still be considered a loose impediment and it would still be legal to move it as long as it hasn't been embedded..  Definitely a smart application of the rules.

Correct.  I remember the USGA was considering tightening up the definition of "loose impediment" to exclude what Tiger did...but I guess they decided against it.  ("Interesting cases make bad case law....")

"A loose impediment is any naturally occuring object that isn't either fixed or growing, solidly embedded, or adhering to the ball."

[Frankensteins Monster]

It can only be moved if the player and his caddy can move it. No outside help can be used. I'm assuming if it's a team play your playing partner and his caddy can help also.