Jump to content

jimbo123

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

416 profile views

jimbo123's Achievements

97

Reputation

  1. Drivers that were once conforming can become non-conforming through normal use if they breach the CT limit, which I gather just means they get "bouncier" over time through normal use. I believe that was the story behind Xander Schauffele's driver being deemed non-conforming. Not sure if that's just a narrow exception to the "normal use" rule or what.
  2. It’s dishonest because, as you point out, no one would honestly take Team 2 to be conceding the hole. So Team 1 knows they didn’t win the hole, but claim it anyway.
  3. I "think" the logic is this: Team 2 thought they conceded Player A's putt for 3, and consequently marked Team 1 down the for win. Team 1 took "nice hole" as a concession of the hole (as distinct from conceding any particular shot), and so marked themselves down for the win. Either way, rank dishonesty on Team 1's part.
  4. Thanks for pointing to the USGA facebook post. They state that there was KVC within 3 minutes, but are noticeably vague about who had KVC. It seems possible (likely?) that the video was reviewed within three minutes but Bryson didn't learn about it within 3 minutes. To me that raises an element of rules uncertainty. Known or Virtually Certain/2 states that the player must have the evidence by the end of 3 minutes. But 9.6b(2) defines KVC a little more generously: In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort. Do you see an inconsistency there or no? Do you think that the ref having information at 3 minutes can satisfy KVC even if the player is oblivious?
  5. I think that whole passage is fine. If you get KVC it was moved within 3 minutes, you replace without penalty, even if you never find the ball. This would cover lots of situations, eg, you see a bird pick up the ball and fly away. The "But" sentence covers what happens if you don't get KVC within 3 minutes.
  6. Good point, it does make sense that Rule 18 and Rule 9 would use the same definition of KVC in that instance. However, the 3 minute time limit is still relevant. I refer back to "Interpretation Known or Virtually Certain/2 - Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires". That interpretation is solely about rule 18 and the 18.2b exception. So I think the only fact-pattern which might be interesting here is the one in which the officials determine what happened to the ball within 3 minutes, but don't communicate it to the player.
  7. A player simply requesting a review within 3 minutes surely can't be sufficient to stop the clock. They are already getting the enormous advantage of the review aiding in their search; if the player plus the video ref fail to find it within 3 minutes, it must be lost, surely. I agree that Mr perrone's post on KVC raises an interesting question about the case where the review finds that an outside influence moved the ball within 3 minutes but the officials don't communicate it back to the player in time. It seems that the player might have KVC under the rule 9 definition of KVC in that case. FWIW though I never saw a suggestion that that happened in Bryson's case. All the accounts I could find suggested that he was looking blindly for 3 minutes, failed, then subsequently all the review business happened. In that case I think the rule 9 definition of KVC is irrelevant; Bryson lost his ball under rule 18 before anyone even started considering rule 9.
  8. Very interesting. What I’m looking at is the second interpretation of KVC here: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/definitions-interpretations.html But now I wonder if the wording you copied from 9.2b(2) “overrides” the general definition of KVC? It certainly seems broader, allowing not just for known info but info that could be reasonably known (just as you say).
  9. It’s an interesting idea, that officials might have some responsibility to convey information, and if they fail to do so in a timely manner, the rules act as though they did do so in a timely manner. I would be happy if the tour came out and elaborated along those lines, but won’t hold my breath. It’s also clear to me that this would be some as-yet-unwritten exception to the rule, contrary to everyone’s insistence here that the ruling was obvious under Rule 9 / 18.
  10. Thanks. Agreed with what you’re saying in spirit. But the interpretation as currently written doesn’t care; if the player doesn’t have the required evidence within 3 minutes, tough luck. Again, it’s not about being a stickler; rules can improve over time (eg to account for technology) but only if people agree on what they say in the first place.
  11. The official Interpretation gives this exact situation as an example of where you need to take S&D. Hard to question the intent of it. Thought I’d raise this to see if I’d learn something, I didn’t, no worries, it’s been fun, see you next time lol
  12. I suspect so too and think the ruling was obviously very “fair” in some moral sense, especially if the fan did it deliberately. But the written rules still matter. They can be improved over time as examples like this highlight flaws.
  13. Why do you say this? I even bolded the bit of the words that disproves this to help you out. Here it is again: “Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.”
×
×
  • Create New...