Matt Kuchar was 100% right in that embedded ball argument

[gvogel]

The crucial thing was that the ball wasn't exactly in the pitch mark. It was sitting OK, not in the pitch mark, but most of the way out of the pitch mark. Matt, play on, without relief.

[MtlJeff]

Players have been trying to use the rules to their advantage forever, which makes sense because the rules hurt them sometimes too (see, Dustin Johnson at US Open)....Kuchar looked really dumb here because it was a dumb argument that had no chance of succeeding, and of course it didnt. But i guess you gotta try, i never thought Bubba Watson would get ants classified as burrowing animals either. Or that Tiger would get a boulder that needed 20 people to move, a moveable object.

 

Again, people hate Kuchar because of the caddie incident, and will tar and feather him for anything , even if it's a common thing any player does.

 

Most people probably can't even remember the name of the guy Joel Dahmen accused of cheating last year with the alleged improper drop (admit it, you are looking it up....). This stuff happens all the time

[Birdie Mac]

> @MtlJeff said:

> Players have been trying to use the rules to their advantage forever, which makes sense because the rules hurt them sometimes too (see, Dustin Johnson at US Open)....Kuchar looked really dumb here because it was a dumb argument that had no chance of succeeding, and of course it didnt. But i guess you gotta try, i never thought Bubba Watson would get ants classified as burrowing animals either. Or that Tiger would get a boulder that needed 20 people to move, a moveable object.

>

> Again, people hate Kuchar because of the caddie incident, and will tar and feather him for anything , even if it's a common thing any player does.

>

> Most people probably can't even remember the name of the guy Joel Dahmen accused of cheating last year with the alleged improper drop (admit it, you are looking it up....). This stuff happens all the time

 

Sung Kang. He just won a tournament recently. And Kuchar looked like a tool carrying on like that.

[MtlJeff]

> @"Birdie Mac" said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > Players have been trying to use the rules to their advantage forever, which makes sense because the rules hurt them sometimes too (see, Dustin Johnson at US Open)....Kuchar looked really dumb here because it was a dumb argument that had no chance of succeeding, and of course it didnt. But i guess you gotta try, i never thought Bubba Watson would get ants classified as burrowing animals either. Or that Tiger would get a boulder that needed 20 people to move, a moveable object.

> >

> > Again, people hate Kuchar because of the caddie incident, and will tar and feather him for anything , even if it's a common thing any player does.

> >

> > Most people probably can't even remember the name of the guy Joel Dahmen accused of cheating last year with the alleged improper drop (admit it, you are looking it up....). This stuff happens all the time

>

> Sung Kang. He just won a tournament recently. And Kuchar looked like a tool carrying on like that.

 

I don't disagree with you, i said he looked dumb. I just said it doesn't shock me that a PGA pro tried something that looked dumb to try to get a favorable ruling.

 

 

 

[TaddNOhio]

Doucher ... i mean Kuchar ??

[bladehunter]

I heard all of this as it happened. But missed the replay. On the words I agree with most of you here. BUT..... watching the replay I agree with the op. It looked like it hit , popped up and back down into its own mark to me. But that’s not the argument he used. So who knows.

[thevaporz]

Wrong. He admitted it wasn't his pitch mark. Take your lumps and move on. He went on for 10 mins, asked to mark his ball to remove it, create a story, and to be able to replace his ball as best he could, and then had the nerve to ask for a third opinion. Really bad form and a cut and dry case of abusing officials to try to cheat one out. Those "Kuuuuuch" cheers are quickly going to become "boooooo" jeers.

[Steele47]

Eddie Haskell strikes again.

[JDFish]

We were sitting in the Grey Goose Landing Area and couldn't see what was going on from our vantage point - just Kuch and Rickie and a caddie and tv guy in the fairway for a long while. I don't know if they showed it on tv, but Phil walked to the green and putted out for par while the negotiation took place. The best part was him flashing four fingers and a smile when Rickie got to the green and asked him what his score was :smiley:

[bladehunter]

> @thevaporz said:

> Wrong. He admitted it wasn't his pitch mark. Take your lumps and move on. He went on for 10 mins, asked to mark his ball to remove it, create a story, and to be able to replace his ball as best he could, and then had the nerve to ask for a third opinion. Really bad form and a cut and dry case of abusing officials to try to cheat one out. Those "Kuuuuuch" cheers are quickly going to become "boooooo" jeers.

 

Lol. Disagree police.

 

Didn’t I say what you said ?

[DatSliceDoe]

It's reairing in real time on GC full round replay now.

 

The ball hit, poped up, and then fell right back down into its own pitch mark. Should be treated as an embedded ball. And if your ball lands in another pitch mark for some reason, it should be treated as hitting off of a divot (now no penalty). USGA needs to address these things urgently.

 

I think Kuch was wrong to fight it so much, but in reality, based on video evidence, that's what happened. I don't think he actually got to see the video in real time, which he should be entitled to do if the rules officials can. Maybe that's why his argument was so weak.

 

Final edit: People disagreeing with these posts - can you explain why? Would you prefer the rules to remain the same? I'd prefer this rare scenario to be addressed under the same rule as ball landing in a divot.

[bladehunter]

> @DatSliceDoe said:

> It's reairing in real time on GC full round replay now.

>

> The ball hit, poped up, and then fell right back down into its own pitch mark. Should be treated as an embedded ball. And if your ball lands in another pitch mark for some reason, it should be treated as hitting off of a divot (now no penalty). USGA needs to address these things urgently.

>

> I think Kuch was wrong to fight it so much, but in reality, based on video evidence, that's what happened.

 

Yep. It looks to me like it hit an actual pitch mark. Hopped up and settled back down into it. Camera man even agrees with him.

 

To me depends on how soft the ground is. If it’s soft enough to make a pitch mark every time then it has to be his. There isn’t another one around .

[dlygrisse]

Just watched the entire episode on TGC. Painful.

Faldo. “We need a 3 minute arguing rule. “

 

Too bad the official couldn’t give him an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, or a technical foul.

[thevaporz]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @thevaporz said:

> > Wrong. He admitted it wasn't his pitch mark. Take your lumps and move on. He went on for 10 mins, asked to mark his ball to remove it, create a story, and to be able to replace his ball as best he could, and then had the nerve to ask for a third opinion. Really bad form and a cut and dry case of abusing officials to try to cheat one out. Those "Kuuuuuch" cheers are quickly going to become "boooooo" jeers.

>

> Lol. Disagree police.

>

> Didn’t I say what you said ?

 

No, you didn't. That's why I disagree. His ball didn't pop up and back, it went forward and to the right. It wasn't his pitch mark. He looked like a jackass pleading his case to everybody.

 

Let the conspiracies fly.


[bladehunter]

> @thevaporz said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @thevaporz said:

> > > Wrong. He admitted it wasn't his pitch mark. Take your lumps and move on. He went on for 10 mins, asked to mark his ball to remove it, create a story, and to be able to replace his ball as best he could, and then had the nerve to ask for a third opinion. Really bad form and a cut and dry case of abusing officials to try to cheat one out. Those "Kuuuuuch" cheers are quickly going to become "boooooo" jeers.

> >

> > Lol. Disagree police.

> >

> > Didn’t I say what you said ?

>

> No, you didn't. That's why I disagree. His ball didn't pop up and back, it went forward and to the right. It wasn't his pitch mark. He looked like a jackass pleading his case to everybody.

>

> Let the conspiracies fly.

> 

 

Have you watched the replay ? You’re just repeating what the official said who refused to watch the replay. Lol. He said “ it went up and right “. Replay says it settled within 6 inches of where it hit. And if there’s no other pitch mark and the ground is soft. Well. That math is easy.

[HitEmTrue]

> @DatSliceDoe said:

> It's reairing in real time on GC full round replay now.

>

> The ball hit, poped up, and then fell right back down into its own pitch mark. Should be treated as an embedded ball. And if your ball lands in another pitch mark for some reason, it should be treated as hitting off of a divot (now no penalty). USGA needs to address these things urgently.

>

> I think Kuch was wrong to fight it so much, but in reality, based on video evidence, that's what happened. I don't think he actually got to see the video in real time, which he should be entitled to do if the rules officials can. Maybe that's why his argument was so weak.

>

> Final edit: People disagreeing with these posts - can you explain why? Would you prefer the rules to remain the same? I'd prefer this rare scenario to be addressed under the same rule as ball landing in a divot.

 

There is no rule (or relief) for a ball landing in a divot hole. Play it as it lies...just like Kuch had to.

 

( haven’t seen the video )

[bladehunter]

> @dlygrisse said:

> Just watched the entire episode on TGC. Painful.

> Faldo. “We need a 3 minute arguing rule. “

>

> Too bad the official couldn’t give him an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, or a technical foul.

I agree he is a boob. And his argument was very much flawed. But I still think it may have hit another pitch mark and then settled back into it. Then the question becomes is it embedded ? Im not sure it is.

 

[DatSliceDoe]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @DatSliceDoe said:

> > It's reairing in real time on GC full round replay now.

> >

> > The ball hit, poped up, and then fell right back down into its own pitch mark. Should be treated as an embedded ball. And if your ball lands in another pitch mark for some reason, it should be treated as hitting off of a divot (now no penalty). USGA needs to address these things urgently.

> >

> > I think Kuch was wrong to fight it so much, but in reality, based on video evidence, that's what happened. I don't think he actually got to see the video in real time, which he should be entitled to do if the rules officials can. Maybe that's why his argument was so weak.

> >

> > Final edit: People disagreeing with these posts - can you explain why? Would you prefer the rules to remain the same? I'd prefer this rare scenario to be addressed under the same rule as ball landing in a divot.

>

> There is no rule (or relief) for a ball landing in a divot hole. Play it as it lies...just like Kuch had to.

>

> ( haven’t seen the video )

 

I'm an idiot. Thought that one went into effect. Oh well I don't play enough to know or care anymore. Kuch is just as big a fool as I am. I'd say they ought to change the rule, most recreational players would welcome it.

[MtlJeff]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @DatSliceDoe said:

> > It's reairing in real time on GC full round replay now.

> >

> > The ball hit, poped up, and then fell right back down into its own pitch mark. Should be treated as an embedded ball. And if your ball lands in another pitch mark for some reason, it should be treated as hitting off of a divot (now no penalty). USGA needs to address these things urgently.

> >

> > I think Kuch was wrong to fight it so much, but in reality, based on video evidence, that's what happened. I don't think he actually got to see the video in real time, which he should be entitled to do if the rules officials can. Maybe that's why his argument was so weak.

> >

> > Final edit: People disagreeing with these posts - can you explain why? Would you prefer the rules to remain the same? I'd prefer this rare scenario to be addressed under the same rule as ball landing in a divot.

>

> There is no rule (or relief) for a ball landing in a divot hole. Play it as it lies...just like Kuch had to.

>

> ( haven’t seen the video )

 

He was arguing the ball bounced and created a second embedded scenario. A pretty ridiculous claim.....i can't imagine that has ever happened before, and if it did, the ground would have to be so wet you'd get casual water relief anyway

 

Good on the ref for calling it for what it was

 

As far as Kuch....i mean i have watched things i think are even dumber get ruled in favor of the player. Sergio doing the splits at the Ryder Cup and pretending it's a normal stance. Bubba calling ants burrowing animals....etc

[thevaporz]

Yeah, I watched the entire recorded broadcast. Did you? Hear Faldo exclaim "there has never been a second pitch mark?" Have you ever seen a second pitch mark? No, 'cause it can't happen. And then go to 3:41:06 mark where the Damon Hack interview with Kuch starts and listen to him stammer his way through explaining what happened. "Mark Immelman." He knows he made a fool of himself.

 


 

[BreakingPar]

> @thevaporz said:

> Yeah, I watched the entire recorded broadcast. Did you? Hear Faldo exclaim "there has never been a second pitch mark?" Have you ever seen a second pitch mark? No, 'cause it can't happen. And then go to 3:41:06 mark where the Damon Hack interview with Kuch starts and listen to him stammer his way through explaining what happened. "Mark Immelman." He knows he made a fool of himself.

>

 

 

I'm saying "there's potential" that he's a douchebag. And I need a 3rd opinion.

[landolakes]

i think it was his pitch mark (IMO)... but his argument was pathetic and made him look bad.... but better than his caddy fiasco— so there’s that.

[Terry Gold]

> @MtlJeff said:

> Players have been trying to use the rules to their advantage forever, which makes sense because the rules hurt them sometimes too (see, Dustin Johnson at US Open)....Kuchar looked really dumb here because it was a dumb argument that had no chance of succeeding, and of course it didnt. But i guess you gotta try, i never thought Bubba Watson would get ants classified as burrowing animals either. Or that Tiger would get a boulder that needed 20 people to move, a moveable object.

>

> Again, people hate Kuchar because of the caddie incident, and will tar and feather him for anything , even if it's a common thing any player does.

>

> Most people probably can't even remember the name of the guy Joel Dahmen accused of cheating last year with the alleged improper drop (admit it, you are looking it up....). This stuff happens all the time

 

You mean like how some people don't remember how that Bubba ruling actually turned out?

[Potatohead]

I don’t know how he didn’t bring up the fact there wasn’t another pitch mark a couple feet short left like there should have been...? Argument fail.

[Studliness]

Agree with OP. It looks like it landed, hopped back about an inch, and rolled forward and settled into the original pitch mark. Immelman was wrong when he said it landed several yards back. But Kuchar had a better lie than if it would have embedded and plugged, not moving at all. It was resting on the top of his original pitchmark. This is not the argument he was making, so it seems irrelevant.

 

His argument was ridiculous: that a hop from 2 inches high or so, could have created a secondary pitch on top of the pitch created by another player. If that were the case, he would be entitled to relief; but that doesn't happen.

[Golfjack]

I guess Kuch isn't that bright after all, can't figure out a proper percentage to tip his caddie, can't figure out the right argument for embedded ball. Although I've never seen this happen before, but I guess that's golf.

[OldTomMorris]

Kuchar's having a great season yet he has had infinitely more media for various incidents than his success.

[Kevinnz]

Rickie said "cheat" which should be sufficient enough to settle any argument.

[OutBackHack]

> @KRW59 said:

> What I saw....and would explain how the ball ended up in his pitch mark.....his drive

> landed into forward edge of an existing pitch mark , hopped up and forward , then

> rolled back into HIS pitch mark. The ball came to rest in his pitch mark , how it ended

> up there and whether it is embedded or not I can see his point......He did'nt argue it

> properly , he made it sound like the the hop made /was the cause of the secondary mark.

 

That is one magic loogie.

[gvogel]

The ball wasn't embedded, it was sitting on the edge of the pitch mark. If the ball had been embedded, he would have had an argument.