Varner ruling.

[rogolf]

What an assinine rule. So you can assemble a club on the range, but not on the course? It's stupid rules like this that give golf a bad name.

-------------

Here's how things played out: Varner began his round at TPC Sawgrass on the par-4 10th with just 13 clubs, his driver being the only one missing from his bag because it had cracked on the range prior to the round. Varner asked rules officials if he could replace it, and they said yes. This is allowed under Rule 4.1b, which states that a player who begins a round with fewer than 14 clubs may add clubs during the round up to the 14-club limit. Varner informed rules officials that his plan was to have his agent take the cracked driver back to the locker room and come back out with a new one.

That's where things got confusing.

Varner wanted to still use the shaft he had in the cracked driver, but with a new driver head. But under the same Rule 4.1b, Varner could NOT take the shaft with him on to the course, have a driver head brought out and assemble the club during play. So Varner left the shaft back at the tee, hoping to have his agent get it assembled off the course then brought out to him. However, a walking scorer mistakenly brought the shaft out on the course, and when the driver head was brought out, too, they assembled the club on the course in violation of the rule.

 

https://www.golfdige...b-on-the-course

Where the "assembly" of the parts took place is irrelevant - it's the history of the parts that is the issue and cause of the Rule breach. Rule 4.1b (Limit of 14 Clubs; Sharing, Adding or Replacing Clubs During Round) clearly states, under (4), "Restrictions When Adding or Replacing Clubs. When Adding or replacing a club, a player must not:

• Build a club from parts carried by anyone for the player during the round."
  

The shaft was being carried by the scorer for the player.

[nsxguy]

What an assinine rule. So you can assemble a club on the range, but not on the course? It's stupid rules like this that give golf a bad name.

-------------

Here's how things played out: Varner began his round at TPC Sawgrass on the par-4 10th with just 13 clubs, his driver being the only one missing from his bag because it had cracked on the range prior to the round. Varner asked rules officials if he could replace it, and they said yes. This is allowed under Rule 4.1b, which states that a player who begins a round with fewer than 14 clubs may add clubs during the round up to the 14-club limit. Varner informed rules officials that his plan was to have his agent take the cracked driver back to the locker room and come back out with a new one.

That's where things got confusing.

Varner wanted to still use the shaft he had in the cracked driver, but with a new driver head. But under the same Rule 4.1b, Varner could NOT take the shaft with him on to the course, have a driver head brought out and assemble the club during play. So Varner left the shaft back at the tee, hoping to have his agent get it assembled off the course then brought out to him. However, a walking scorer mistakenly brought the shaft out on the course, and when the driver head was brought out, too, they assembled the club on the course in violation of the rule.

 

https://www.golfdige...b-on-the-course

 

After all this, and even with you posting the CORRECT violation information, YOU still make the wrong statement "So you can assemble a club on the range, but not on the course? It's stupid rules like this that give golf a bad name." :fie: :fie: :fie:

[deadsolid...shank]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn’t the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn’t know the rule?

[rogolf]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

I wouldn't go that far - he knows the Rule and the breach. Perhaps he didn't express himself clearly enough. Obviously, assembling the parts and adding the club is the culmination of the breach, without the assembly and adding the club, there would be no breach. Again, where it was assembled is irrelevant.

[deadsolid...shank]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

I wouldn't go that far - he knows the Rule and the breach. Perhaps he didn't express himself clearly enough. Obviously, assembling the parts and adding the club is the culmination of the breach, without the assembly and adding the club, there would be no breach. Again, where it was assembled is irrelevant.

 

Very true Although “So when they brought the head out and assembled it out there, it broke Rule 4.” seems expressed pretty clearly.

[nsxguy]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

 

Perhaps you could quote the part you're talking about, IN context" ?

 

What I see is "Well, he couldn't take that shaft with him on the golf course. [The club] cannot be assembled on the golf course. His caddie was told that when he asked one of our officials. So he left it there on the tee, and the walking scorer picked it up and took it on the golf course, and Harold and the caddie were aware of this."

 

The club cannot be assembled on the course is said immediately after saying he couldn't take the shaft with him on the golf course. The club cannot be assembled on the course is not a "standalone" statement.

 

And I'm not sure if Mark Russell was the official who originally talked to HV on the driving range. So again, we don't know what was said and when (or what was heard either).

[deadsolid...shank]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

 

Perhaps you could quote the part you're talking about, IN context" ?

 

What I see is "Well, he couldn't take that shaft with him on the golf course. [The club] cannot be assembled on the golf course. His caddie was told that when he asked one of our officials. So he left it there on the tee, and the walking scorer picked it up and took it on the golf course, and Harold and the caddie were aware of this."

 

The club cannot be assembled on the course is said immediately after saying he couldn't take the shaft with him on the golf course. The club cannot be assembled on the course is not a "standalone" statement.

 

And I'm not sure if Mark Russell was the official who originally talked to HV on the driving range. So again, we don't know what was said and when (or what was heard either).

 

No,I agree, we really don’t know what exactly was said, and I’m sure we probably never will. But the part of the quote that says “can’t be assembled on the course” can and does stand on its own regardless of the context of what was with it. Because it’s wrong. Even though it really wasn’t the pertinent aspect of the issue.

 

I do believe when he said it, he probaly did so meaning in conjunction with the first part. As kind of a qualifier with the not carrying parts. But when you put it in print, it’s right there.

 

That’s just how I see it. Thankfully it didn’t seem to be a event changer.

[nsxguy]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

 

Perhaps you could quote the part you're talking about, IN context" ?

 

What I see is "Well, he couldn't take that shaft with him on the golf course. [The club] cannot be assembled on the golf course. His caddie was told that when he asked one of our officials. So he left it there on the tee, and the walking scorer picked it up and took it on the golf course, and Harold and the caddie were aware of this."

 

The club cannot be assembled on the course is said immediately after saying he couldn't take the shaft with him on the golf course. The club cannot be assembled on the course is not a "standalone" statement.

 

And I'm not sure if Mark Russell was the official who originally talked to HV on the driving range. So again, we don't know what was said and when (or what was heard either).

 

No,I agree, we really don’t know what exactly was said, and I’m sure we probably never will. But the part of the quote that says “can’t be assembled on the course” can and does stand on its own regardless of the context of what was with it. Because it’s wrong.

 

Not everything is meant to be take literally. Lord knows the entire world speaks in slang.

 

While I agree, said the way it was, could have been a little clearer,,,,,,,,,,,,, to ME, there is no difference between him saying (consecutively) "he couldn't take that shaft with him on the golf course. [The club] cannot be assembled on the golf course" and "He couldn't take the shaft with him on the course and then use it to assemble a club".

 

Note - "The club" is in brackets. That typically means the writer added that for clarity. So the speaker didn't say those words. Now it sounds differently BUT "stranger" if the speaker actually didn't say those 2 words. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

Would it make a difference to you if "The club" wasn't there ?

 

At the very least, having said it the way he did would prompt the same question you had "The club can't be assembled on the course ?, to which I would add, "Then why bother saying he can't take the shaft with him ?"" ?

 

So the statement in its entirety should have provoked a(nother) question.

 

Nitpicking ? Maybe. :dntknw: :wacko:

[farmer]

Without getting into the weeds, I am opposed to a club being added during play. HV knew the club was broken before the round started, he should have fixed it as soon as knew it was broken.

[deadsolid...shank]

Without getting into the weeds, I am opposed to a club being added during play. HV knew the club was broken before the round started, he should have fixed it as soon as knew it was broken.

 

I’m sure he would have if it had been at all possible.

[BiggErn]

Without getting into the weeds, I am opposed to a club being added during play. HV knew the club was broken before the round started, he should have fixed it as soon as knew it was broken.

 

I’m against adding a random club during the middle of the round for sure. In this instance he was replacing a club that had broken that he couldn’t start the round with. Guys need to be better prepared I suppose especially when the rules and those enforcing them let you down.

[rogolf]

Without getting into the weeds, I am opposed to a club being added during play. HV knew the club was broken before the round started, he should have fixed it as soon as knew it was broken.

Interesting, as that was a proposal that was discussed during the modernization - limiting the player to the clubs he started with - no addition or replacement. The "no replacement" part was adopted, the "no addition" didn't make the cut, not sure why. I could live with both.

[Mr. Bean]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

I wouldn't go that far - he knows the Rule and the breach. Perhaps he didn't express himself clearly enough. Obviously, assembling the parts and adding the club is the culmination of the breach, without the assembly and adding the club, there would be no breach. Again, where it was assembled is irrelevant.

 

Very true Although “So when they brought the head out and assembled it out there, it broke Rule 4.” seems expressed pretty clearly.

 

Shank, you must be a troll. There is no other way to explain this continuous flood of stupid counterarguments. Even though you have been explained the Rule as it is SEVERAL times you still create your own stupid twists!

 

Honestly! Are you here to learn or to argue??

[deadsolid...shank]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

I wouldn't go that far - he knows the Rule and the breach. Perhaps he didn't express himself clearly enough. Obviously, assembling the parts and adding the club is the culmination of the breach, without the assembly and adding the club, there would be no breach. Again, where it was assembled is irrelevant.

 

Very true Although “So when they brought the head out and assembled it out there, it broke Rule 4.” seems expressed pretty clearly.

 

Shank, you must be a troll. There is no other way to explain this continuous flood of stupid counterarguments. Even though you have been explained the Rule as it is SEVERAL times you still create your own stupid twists!

 

Honestly! Are you here to learn or to argue??

 

Really, a troll? Trust me, I have nothing to learn from you, except how to be pompous and condescending. I realize you think you’re much smarter than me, and probably most everyone else here too, your tone indicates that on a regular basis. .

 

There are have been several people who have questioned this entire situation, the ruling and how it was handled. Especially the particular wording of all three printed statements. Nothing has been settled since none of us know exactly what was said. Which is what was said just a few posts ago.

 

I’ve tried very hard to stay civil, especially after you’re snide remark of a day or two ago about “how many times you have to explain it to me”. Thought you were pretty clever there didn’t you? Well, I’ll tell you what big boy, this is my last statement to you, so go ahead and get your last little digs in because I’ll no longer see them.

[bladehunter]

I still say that if a player comes to the committee before a round and asks for help, He should be given help until that situation is over. More I think the more I know that this was an avoidable situation. No reason to not guide a guy who asks, through a rules scenario that NEVeR comes up.

[Mr. Bean]

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

I wouldn't go that far - he knows the Rule and the breach. Perhaps he didn't express himself clearly enough. Obviously, assembling the parts and adding the club is the culmination of the breach, without the assembly and adding the club, there would be no breach. Again, where it was assembled is irrelevant.

 

Very true Although “So when they brought the head out and assembled it out there, it broke Rule 4.” seems expressed pretty clearly.

 

Shank, you must be a troll. There is no other way to explain this continuous flood of stupid counterarguments. Even though you have been explained the Rule as it is SEVERAL times you still create your own stupid twists!

 

Honestly! Are you here to learn or to argue??

 

Really, a troll? Trust me, I have nothing to learn from you

 

... and from nobody else.... yes, that we all have seen. Rather pompous talk from a person who has neither studied the Rules nor has ever been a referee. Your trolling would be fine if it did not lengthen these threads with posts nobody wants to read and most important, nobody learns anything out of.

[Sawgrass]

I still say that if a player comes to the committee before a round and asks for help, He should be given help until that situation is over. More I think the more I know that this was an avoidable situation. No reason to not guide a guy who asks, through a rules scenario that NEVeR comes up.

This may be true. But it also may be true that the player got sufficient help and fumbled it.

 

One thing I firmly believe is that the initial problem shouldn’t exclusively become the official’s problem to deal with just because the player asked for help. It’s the player who has the obligation to play by the rules, not the official’s obligation to make sure he does.

[deadsolid...shank]

 

But from the GD quote, someone, an official I assume, flat out stated that a club cannot be assembled on the course. Ro just posted the actual rule where that isn't the case.

 

So basically we had a Rules official who didn't know the rule?

I wouldn't go that far - he knows the Rule and the breach. Perhaps he didn't express himself clearly enough. Obviously, assembling the parts and adding the club is the culmination of the breach, without the assembly and adding the club, there would be no breach. Again, where it was assembled is irrelevant.

 

 

Very true Although “So when they brought the head out and assembled it out there, it broke Rule 4.” seems expressed pretty clearly.

 

Shank, you must be a troll. There is no other way to explain this continuous flood of stupid counterarguments. Even though you have been explained the Rule as it is SEVERAL times you still create your own stupid twists!

 

Honestly! Are you here to learn or to argue??

 

Really, a troll? Trust me, I have nothing to learn from you

 

... and from nobody else.... yes, that we all have seen. Rather pompous talk from a person who has neither studied the Rules nor has ever been a referee. Your trolling would be fine if it did not lengthen these threads with posts nobody wants to read and most important, nobody learns anything out of.

 

I really was going to stop, but......

 

I’ve learned a lot here. From posters like Colin, Sawgrass, Ro, and Newby, who are able to share their knowledge with a bit a class and grace. Not the arrogance that you exude. But again, when you obviously think you’re the smartest person here there is no reason to think you show any class.

 

Never been a referee, hmm. I said I have not reffed a golf tournament, but if you want to go stacking up officiating credentials then buckle up because you’re in for a long ride (since your reffing comment stemmed from a general officiating comment that wasn’t necessarily about golf).

 

And showing that arrogance again. Just because you don’t like my posts you assume nobody wants to read them. Definition of arrogance there.

 

Oh, well, I’m sorry I came back again, and reneged on my word. Sometimes us stupid people do things like that. All your forum now Bucko.

[deadsolid...shank]

I still say that if a player comes to the committee before a round and asks for help, He should be given help until that situation is over. More I think the more I know that this was an avoidable situation. No reason to not guide a guy who asks, through a rules scenario that NEVeR comes up.

This may be true. But it also may be true that the player got sufficient help and fumbled it.

 

One thing I firmly believe is that the initial problem shouldn’t exclusively become the official’s problem to deal with just because the player asked for help. It’s the player who has the obligation to play by the rules, not the official’s obligation to make sure he does.

 

I was going to say something but Mr Bean says I needlessly elongate these threads with my stupid troll posts!

[bladehunter]

Mostly I agree. When it’s a rule that’s pretty one piece and easy. This wasn’t that. We see them stand with and guide simple drops all day. Why not babysit something big like this ?

 

What I’m saying is that you could have recited the rule (s) to me 4-5 times and I’d have still needed a diagram to look back at to have got it right ( on purpose). Just because the official thinks he’s “ properly explained it” doesn’t mean he has. And this case obviously illustrates that.

 

Just look at this thread. We still have folks who think you can’t assemble it on course. Some who think assembling it is the same as adjusting it , and even a rules official who cites the “ Can’t have players assembling and adjusting clubs on the course”. Absolutely incorrect explanation of what the penalty was for.

 

I don’t blame officials for players actions often. But the officials do have some responsibility to a player who stops and asks. They aren’t with clean hands if that question ends in the wrong action and a penalty unless that player is purposefully trying to skate a rule. Which is clearly not the case here.

 

 

[bladehunter]

Bean. We all get up on the wrong side of the bed sometimes.

 

Shank is one of the nicest , most even headed guys on here. That was pretty uncalled for in my opinion. Or at least. Gained nothing except a black eye on your part.

 

 

Having been a referee has literally zero to do with reading and debating a rules meaning and application. Referees don’t write rules , and usually have to consult others before doing anything.

 

Time and time again we see these threads where true experts ( like you ) get upset because the layperson is questioning something pertaining to the rules that absolutely doesn’t pass the commmon sense test. It goes back and forth and a great deal of the time it ends up being looked at by the guys over both our heads . Then it’s radio silence , and later on there you guys are defending the revision. Why is that ?

 

My point? That these debates go on in other places too and they are the very catalysts for change. They aren’t silly nor do they impede learning. I’ve learned a great deal here. And I’m thankful for it. And I have even more to go. But working it out and making sense of it is the way that it is. Otherwise why would this forum exist ? It’s not here to have dictation given .

 

In short. Let’s be nice to each other.

[Mr. Bean]

Bean. We all get up on the wrong side of the bed sometimes.

 

Shank is one of the nicest , most even headed guys on here. That was pretty uncalled for in my opinion. Or at least. Gained nothing except a black eye on your part.

 

 

Having been a referee has literally zero to do with reading and debating a rules meaning and application. Referees don't write rules , and usually have to consult others before doing anything.

 

Time and time again we see these threads where true experts ( like you ) get upset because the layperson is questioning something pertaining to the rules that absolutely doesn't pass the commmon sense test. It goes back and forth and a great deal of the time it ends up being looked at by the guys over both our heads . Then it's radio silence , and later on there you guys are defending the revision. Why is that ?

 

My point? That these debates go on in other places too and they are the very catalysts for change. They aren't silly nor do they impede learning. I've learned a great deal here. And I'm thankful for it. And I have even more to go. But working it out and making sense of it is the way that it is. Otherwise why would this forum exist ? It's not here to have dictation given .

 

In short. Let's be nice to each other.

 

Sure, you have good points there and I would never disagree with those. But my kettle boils over when someone has been told over and over again that this is letter A and it is clearly said that in the Rules and the other keeps arguing 'yes but someone else said it is B'. It is just impossible to respect a person's wish to place the same argument over and over again when it already has been proven wrong. Nobody gains in that and it is my person to bring it out, like it or not.

[Newby]

 

 

The way I see it. He carried his damaged driver , and had a head brought to him .

 

 

I haven't read any further yet (ie post #147) but didn't you just agree that the scorer carried his original shaft, not the player?

[Newby]

 

If the shaft was being carried for the player but the player and his caddie had no knowledge of that fact and did not direct it, the player should not be held responsible.

Coming late to this but wasn't the shaft being carried to the player rather than for the player.

 

How else would the shaft and head get to the player?

[Newby]

It has been suggested the referee was lax or wrong in telling the player how to proceed. If the referee had in fact given him the wrong information, surely he (the ref) would have held his hands up and the player would not have been penalised and there would have been no fuss. If I am right, the ref did not make a mistake but the 'score card carrier' caused the player to inadvertently breach the rule.

The rule itself seems pretty straightforward except for a clarification of the the words 'for the player'.

[bladehunter]

 

 

The way I see it. He carried his damaged driver , and had a head brought to him .

 

 

I haven't read any further yet (ie post #147) but didn't you just agree that the scorer carried his original shaft, not the player?

Yes. But it’s been called into question when he knew this

 

 

The rule does say “for”. To me at least that means that the player knows and has the person carry it “ for” him or her. A volunteer picking up something and carrying it thinking he can help isn’t the players fault if he doesn’t know it . Maybe that’s wrong thinking. But it’s not a black and white scenario

[bladehunter]

It has been suggested the referee was lax or wrong in telling the player how to proceed. If the referee had in fact given him the wrong information, surely he (the ref) would have held his hands up and the player would not have been penalised and there would have been no fuss. If I am right, the ref did not make a mistake but the 'score card carrier' caused the player to inadvertently breach the rule.

The rule itself seems pretty straightforward except for a clarification of the the words 'for the player'.

 

Agree with all that with the exception of this. To me it depends on when the official knows that the scorer is carrying it. If he knows 2 holes back and says nothing. I think it’s on him too.

[rogolf]

It has been suggested the referee was lax or wrong in telling the player how to proceed. If the referee had in fact given him the wrong information, surely he (the ref) would have held his hands up and the player would not have been penalised and there would have been no fuss. If I am right, the ref did not make a mistake but the 'score card carrier' caused the player to inadvertently breach the rule.

The rule itself seems pretty straightforward except for a clarification of the the words 'for the player'.

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

[ThinkingPlus]

It has been suggested the referee was lax or wrong in telling the player how to proceed. If the referee had in fact given him the wrong information, surely he (the ref) would have held his hands up and the player would not have been penalised and there would have been no fuss. If I am right, the ref did not make a mistake but the 'score card carrier' caused the player to inadvertently breach the rule.

The rule itself seems pretty straightforward except for a clarification of the the words 'for the player'.

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

Usually there is some kind of agreement needed between parties for someone to act on your behalf. If the player requested that official carry the shaft for him then it would be clear. If he didn't, but was aware then someone might claim an implicit agreement was in place (a bit thin to me, but the RoGs have a tendency to assume guilt). If he didn't know until later after the club was assembled and used then the penalty seems problematic. My 2 cents which in this forum isn't worth 2 cents.

[rogolf]

It has been suggested the referee was lax or wrong in telling the player how to proceed. If the referee had in fact given him the wrong information, surely he (the ref) would have held his hands up and the player would not have been penalised and there would have been no fuss. If I am right, the ref did not make a mistake but the 'score card carrier' caused the player to inadvertently breach the rule.

The rule itself seems pretty straightforward except for a clarification of the the words 'for the player'.

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

Usually there is some kind of agreement needed between parties for someone to act on your behalf. If the player requested that official carry the shaft for him then it would be clear. If he didn't, but was aware then someone might claim an implicit agreement was in place (a bit thin to me, but the RoGs have a tendency to assume guilt). If he didn't know until later after the club was assembled and used then the penalty seems problematic. My 2 cents which in this forum isn't worth 2 cents.

The player, whose responsibility is to know the Rules, would/should know immediately when the shaft appeared from the scorer that it was being carried "for him". The careful player would have said, "No thanks, please bring another shaft from the locker or golf shop." Imo, there aren't many "careful players" on the PGATour- they are largely dependent on the referees.