2019 WM Phoenix Open

[MattyO1984]

About as disappointing final round as I can remember watching for some time.

 

It seemed like it was set up well to be a really interesting Sunday night watch. Could Rickie hold on? Could JT go on a birdie blitz to claw him back? Could Kuchar claim his third win of the season? Whatever it was going to be, it was going to be entertaining...or so I thought. Rain and bad weather, although nothing that bad in the grand scheme of things, everyone in contention playing like they had taken temporary leave of their senses and the idiots in the crowd shouting, yelling and booing finally getting too much for me to bear.

 

By the end, I was glad that it was done.

[JonnyKrasnodar]

It was a poor final round all round but Rickie really dug deep to secure the win. It must be tough to card over par rounds with the 54 hole lead but I think some of the criticism of Fowler is unwarranted.

 

There were two other big names in with a shout of a win and they carded over par rounds. Does that make them bottlers now?

 

If Rory was one of the chasing pack and carded +1 or +2 would the debate be about Rickie?

 

Big win for him. Brilliant.

[soap1984]

How could anyone think he was hitting 7 after the second drop? He was 5 after the ball was dropped the first time then he didn't make a stroke before it went in the water. I think the confusing part is he was assessed two penalty shots for going in the water. He took five shots with two penalty strokes

[new2g0lf]

The 11th hole was an evil setup. They wanted balls to roll off the green and go into the water. As I watched it live I thought for sure he was going to end up in the trap but the grass around the trap must have been higher as the ball somewhat rebounded off of it and kept rolling down into the water. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the rules and I would have scored it wrong.

[nichho]

Super Bowl is going to be a big letdown after this.

 

Do you hire that crystal ball out?

 

That Super Bowl would have made a match between Kevin Na and Ben Crane seem exciting.

[DatSliceDoe]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

[augustgolf]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Dont be holding your breath, brother

[lowheel]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Bush league rule. No advantage to be gained by any player with that rule. Should be changed eliminated immediately.

[ebrasmus21]

This tournament was on another level entertainment-wise compared to the super lame bowl.

[kylesilk]

Would a Pro V have checked up for Rickie??

[sui generis]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Player took a risk placing a ball on a wet slope. He compounded his mistake by wandering off to survey the green. Asking for trouble? It didn't pay off. He had one and maybe two other choices for taking relief for his ball in a penalty area.

[Obee]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Bush league rule. No advantage to be gained by any player with that rule. Should be changed eliminated immediately.

 

So what would the rule change be, exactly?

 

It would have to ONLY apply as kind of a "no double jeopardy" thing, right? Once your ball goes into a hazard and you take relief with penalty, you may not be penalized again for your ball going into the same hazard before playing another stroke.

 

It would have to be quite precise that way, right?

[Obee]

Would a Pro V have checked up for Rickie??

 

Not sure if this is serious or not, but it very likely would have. The Pro V1x has more greenside (1/4, 1/2, 3/4 shot) spin than just about any ball out there. Could be the most (though one of Srixon's balls spins a ton, too, if I'm not mistaken).

[Krt22]

Would a Pro V have checked up for Rickie??

 

I think rickie gave it a little extra thinking the green was wet and would be slow, instead hit a slick spot and took a big skid/hop. Not sure if the ball would have mattered

[DatSliceDoe]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Bush league rule. No advantage to be gained by any player with that rule. Should be changed eliminated immediately.

 

So what would the rule change be, exactly?

 

It would have to ONLY apply as kind of a "no double jeopardy" thing, right? Once your ball goes into a hazard and you take relief with penalty, you may not be penalized again for your ball going into the same hazard before playing another stroke.

 

It would have to be quite precise that way, right?

 

Yes

[eebomb]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

according to rangersgoalie it's a great rule.

[tiderider]

i don't know what the exact rule was before, nor what the exact rule is now, but if you drop a ball/place a ball, you're not responsible for it rolling into a hazard ... you didn't cause it to roll in the water ... it's an asinine rule and goes against the intent of the rules themselves ...

 

but it's certainly par for the usga to come up with this type of crap ...

[kylesilk]

Would a Pro V have checked up for Rickie??

 

Not sure if this is serious or not, but it very likely would have. The Pro V1x has more greenside (1/4, 1/2, 3/4 shot) spin than just about any ball out there. Could be the most (though one of Srixon's balls spins a ton, too, if I'm not mistaken).

 

Well, at first I was kind of thinking of it as a joke. Then I got to thinking about the differences in balls. Rickie just changed to this ball so just by habit he might have hit the shot like he would with the old ball. Anyhow, I'm glad he pulled it out in the end.

[lowheel]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Player took a risk placing a ball on a wet slope. He compounded his mistake by wandering off to survey the green. Asking for trouble? It didn't pay off. He had one and maybe two other choices for taking relief for his ball in a penalty area.

 

Come on man...

[lowheel]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Bush league rule. No advantage to be gained by any player with that rule. Should be changed eliminated immediately.

 

So what would the rule change be, exactly?

 

It would have to ONLY apply as kind of a "no double jeopardy" thing, right? Once your ball goes into a hazard and you take relief with penalty, you may not be penalized again for your ball going into the same hazard before playing another stroke.

 

It would have to be quite precise that way, right?

 

Yes exactly. Its not really complicated, its situational and covers 99% of scenarios including this one. With the way the rules changed on the greens with balls moving on their own this should be no different. Ricky was literally on the green looking at his landing area when the ball moved. the offical told him this is where he could get relief. He didnt cause it to move. Theres no reasonable interpretation where this is legit

[HitEmTrue]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Bush league rule. No advantage to be gained by any player with that rule. Should be changed eliminated immediately.

 

So what would the rule change be, exactly?

 

It would have to ONLY apply as kind of a "no double jeopardy" thing, right? Once your ball goes into a hazard and you take relief with penalty, you may not be penalized again for your ball going into the same hazard before playing another stroke.

 

It would have to be quite precise that way, right?

 

Yes exactly. Its not really complicated, its situational and covers 99% of scenarios including this one. With the way the rules changed on the greens with balls moving on their own this should be no different. Ricky was literally on the green looking at his landing area when the ball moved. the offical told him this is where he could get relief. He didnt cause it to move. Theres no reasonable interpretation where this is legit

 

The golf ball can stop on a slope and continue on its way (or reverse direction, and roll back down the hill) after any stroke that has been taken. It may roll to a better location, or worse.

 

You may not even see it happen, because you hit the ball from a long way away. But you play the ball from where it finally ends up. It has always been that way.

 

[lowheel]

When is the rule changing on what happened to Rickie on 11? That is utter BS.

 

Bush league rule. No advantage to be gained by any player with that rule. Should be changed eliminated immediately.

 

So what would the rule change be, exactly?

 

It would have to ONLY apply as kind of a "no double jeopardy" thing, right? Once your ball goes into a hazard and you take relief with penalty, you may not be penalized again for your ball going into the same hazard before playing another stroke.

 

It would have to be quite precise that way, right?

 

Yes exactly. Its not really complicated, its situational and covers 99% of scenarios including this one. With the way the rules changed on the greens with balls moving on their own this should be no different. Ricky was literally on the green looking at his landing area when the ball moved. the offical told him this is where he could get relief. He didnt cause it to move. Theres no reasonable interpretation where this is legit

 

The golf ball can stop on a slope and continue on its way (or reverse direction, and roll back down the hill) after any stroke that has been taken. It may roll to a better location, or worse.

 

You may not even see it happen, because you hit the ball from a long way away. But you play the ball from where it finally ends up. It has always been that way.

 

You think this rule ever imagined 12.5 greens and fairways that are double cut and faster than most greens on munis? Stupid things happen and then you adjust and change the rules because golf is unfair and hard enough as it is. Common sense and Pga tour setups should always rule the day. Explain to me what advantage Ricky gained by taking that drop.Think of a major being decided that way? there would be a reckoning. Dumb rule plain and simple

[Obee]

I DO want the rule changed, but ONLY in an instance regarding a hazard.

 

I'm with HitEmTrue on non hazard-related movement. Let's say you hit your tee shot up onto a steep slope in some rough. You hit a stinker of a shot into a stinker of a position. However, as you are walking to your ball, the ball begins to move and then trickles down the slope and roles down into the center of the fairway. Your ball was at rest, but it moved to a better position (or it could be a worse one). I do NOT want that to change. That's golf.

 

And even though that's not a common scenario, that has happened to me a couple times in my life. The rules should (attempt to) consider all scenarios.

 

I would only want it changed if it involves a hazard that you ALREADY DROPPED FROM.

 

Is that reasonable?

[lowheel]

I DO want the rule changed, but ONLY in an instance regarding a hazard.

 

I'm with HitEmTrue on non hazard-related movement. Let's say you hit your tee shot up onto a steep slope in some rough. You hit a stinker of a shot into a stinker of a position. However, as you are walking to your ball, the ball begins to move and then trickles down the slope and roles down into the center of the fairway. Your ball was at rest, but it moved to a better position (or it could be a worse one). I do NOT want that to change. That's golf.

 

And even though that's not a common scenario, that has happened to me a couple times in my life. The rules should (attempt to) consider all scenarios.

 

I would only want it changed if it involves a hazard that you ALREADY DROPPED FROM.

 

Is that reasonable?

 

Yes I thought it was clear in my response that were talking about this one scenario specifically about drops and hazards not the rest of it. it doesnt require research or consultation with the ruling bodies at all to know its time to fix this loophole. Its a simple addendum to the existing rule to cover ridiculous unfair things/scenarios like this. Its a no brainer. they did it for balls on the green, logic dictates this should be covered

[bandrz]

I DO want the rule changed, but ONLY in an instance regarding a hazard.

 

I'm with HitEmTrue on non hazard-related movement. Let's say you hit your tee shot up onto a steep slope in some rough. You hit a stinker of a shot into a stinker of a position. However, as you are walking to your ball, the ball begins to move and then trickles down the slope and roles down into the center of the fairway. Your ball was at rest, but it moved to a better position (or it could be a worse one). I do NOT want that to change. That's golf.

 

And even though that's not a common scenario, that has happened to me a couple times in my life. The rules should (attempt to) consider all scenarios.

 

I would only want it changed if it involves a hazard that you ALREADY DROPPED FROM.

 

Is that reasonable?

 

Yes I thought it was clear in my response that were talking about this one scenario specifically about drops and hazards not the rest of it. it doesnt require research or consultation with the ruling bodies at all to know its time to fix this loophole. Its a simple addendum to the existing rule to cover ridiculous unfair things/scenarios like this. Its a no brainer. they did it for balls on the green, logic dictates this should be covered

 

couldn't agree more. If you take relief (no matter free relief or from a hazard and no matter if dropped or placed) the ball should not be deemed "in play" until you strike it again. Not sure why this would be so hard to interpret. The fact that this rule already exists on the putting green but no where else on the course fundamentally illustrates how inconsistent the USGA is in governing.

[KevCarter]

I DO want the rule changed, but ONLY in an instance regarding a hazard.

 

I'm with HitEmTrue on non hazard-related movement. Let's say you hit your tee shot up onto a steep slope in some rough. You hit a stinker of a shot into a stinker of a position. However, as you are walking to your ball, the ball begins to move and then trickles down the slope and roles down into the center of the fairway. Your ball was at rest, but it moved to a better position (or it could be a worse one). I do NOT want that to change. That's golf.

 

And even though that's not a common scenario, that has happened to me a couple times in my life. The rules should (attempt to) consider all scenarios.

 

I would only want it changed if it involves a hazard that you ALREADY DROPPED FROM.

 

Is that reasonable?

 

I really like your idea. In fairness, in my 60 years, I've not seen anything like this happen, never even thought of the consequences. I'll bet not many have. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the ruling bodies aren't already looking at the alternatives. We have to keep in mind that any change may have a lot of ramifications that we've not thought of, but at first blush.... :victory: :good:

[Potatohead]

When I watched this happen I couldn't hear much because the wife was vacuuming ( ) but I never once thought he would be penalized for the ball rolling into the water post placement because he had never addressed the ball. I didn't find out until a few minutes later and was flabbergasted that this was a thing. Seems unfair to me.

[DatSliceDoe]

I DO want the rule changed, but ONLY in an instance regarding a hazard.

 

I'm with HitEmTrue on non hazard-related movement. Let's say you hit your tee shot up onto a steep slope in some rough. You hit a stinker of a shot into a stinker of a position. However, as you are walking to your ball, the ball begins to move and then trickles down the slope and roles down into the center of the fairway. Your ball was at rest, but it moved to a better position (or it could be a worse one). I do NOT want that to change. That's golf.

 

And even though that's not a common scenario, that has happened to me a couple times in my life. The rules should (attempt to) consider all scenarios.

 

I would only want it changed if it involves a hazard that you ALREADY DROPPED FROM.

 

Is that reasonable?

 

Yes I thought it was clear in my response that were talking about this one scenario specifically about drops and hazards not the rest of it. it doesnt require research or consultation with the ruling bodies at all to know its time to fix this loophole. Its a simple addendum to the existing rule to cover ridiculous unfair things/scenarios like this. Its a no brainer. they did it for balls on the green, logic dictates this should be covered

 

couldn't agree more. If you take relief (no matter free relief or from a hazard and no matter if dropped or placed) the ball should not be deemed "in play" until you strike it again. Not sure why this would be so hard to interpret. The fact that this rule already exists on the putting green but no where else on the course fundamentally illustrates how inconsistent the USGA is in governing.

 

Similar rule has applied for ages for a ball on a tee which falls off on its own accord without being struck on a practice swing or otherwise. You get to replace it, no penalty. Putting green, same idea. The whole course should be treated as such.

 

Something like: "After taking a penalty drop, if the ball moves of its own accord without influence by the player into a hazard area, the player may replace the ball without incurring additional penalty strokes."

[lowheel]

I DO want the rule changed, but ONLY in an instance regarding a hazard.

 

I'm with HitEmTrue on non hazard-related movement. Let's say you hit your tee shot up onto a steep slope in some rough. You hit a stinker of a shot into a stinker of a position. However, as you are walking to your ball, the ball begins to move and then trickles down the slope and roles down into the center of the fairway. Your ball was at rest, but it moved to a better position (or it could be a worse one). I do NOT want that to change. That's golf.

 

And even though that's not a common scenario, that has happened to me a couple times in my life. The rules should (attempt to) consider all scenarios.

 

I would only want it changed if it involves a hazard that you ALREADY DROPPED FROM.

 

Is that reasonable?

 

Yes I thought it was clear in my response that were talking about this one scenario specifically about drops and hazards not the rest of it. it doesnt require research or consultation with the ruling bodies at all to know its time to fix this loophole. Its a simple addendum to the existing rule to cover ridiculous unfair things/scenarios like this. Its a no brainer. they did it for balls on the green, logic dictates this should be covered

 

couldn't agree more. If you take relief (no matter free relief or from a hazard and no matter if dropped or placed) the ball should not be deemed "in play" until you strike it again. Not sure why this would be so hard to interpret. The fact that this rule already exists on the putting green but no where else on the course fundamentally illustrates how inconsistent the USGA is in governing.

 

Similar rule has applied for ages for a ball on a tee which falls off on its own accord without being struck on a practice swing or otherwise. You get to replace it, no penalty. Putting green, same idea. The whole course should be treated as such.

 

Something like: "After taking a penalty drop, if the ball moves of its own accord without influence by the player into a hazard area, the player may replace the ball without incurring additional penalty strokes."

 

This makes too much sense though, USGA wont like it. ;)

[scotee]

I DO want the rule changed, but ONLY in an instance regarding a hazard.

 

I'm with HitEmTrue on non hazard-related movement. Let's say you hit your tee shot up onto a steep slope in some rough. You hit a stinker of a shot into a stinker of a position. However, as you are walking to your ball, the ball begins to move and then trickles down the slope and roles down into the center of the fairway. Your ball was at rest, but it moved to a better position (or it could be a worse one). I do NOT want that to change. That's golf.

 

And even though that's not a common scenario, that has happened to me a couple times in my life. The rules should (attempt to) consider all scenarios.

 

I would only want it changed if it involves a hazard that you ALREADY DROPPED FROM.

 

Is that reasonable?

 

Yes reasonable. I am surprised this has not happened before. What if Slugger White is standing right there. The drops are made and the caddie catches it before it goes into the water. The player then places it and just as the words are coming out of his mouth "ball in pla...." it rolls back in. Another penalty? How long does it have to remain at rest. Doesn't seem quite fair if you don't cause it to move and have already taken a stroke.