Matt Kuchar was 100% right in that embedded ball argument

[OldTomMorris]

> @NoodleSalad said:

> Oh look, Eddie Pepperell is back with more "hot takes" from his barcalounger in the UK. You'd think he'd shut it for a while after his previous tweet about getting ultra-violent with American fans who are too loud, but no. And people in this forum just clap like seals for everything he says. I hope he gets heckled to pieces next time he's here. I'll do it myself if I'm in the area.

 

The clapping seals find Eddie amusing.

Maybe Kuchar will catch up with Eddie at the next event and punch him square in the back of the neck.

[Roadking2003]

> @King_Slender said:

> If you watch the replays they showed, Kuchar's ball lands, pops straight up and rolls back into its own pitch mark. There was no need to make an argument that the hop produced a second pitch mark - the pitch mark it was in was his own.

There was no other pitch mark nearby, so it had to be his pitch mark.

[davep043]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @King_Slender said:

> > If you watch the replays they showed, Kuchar's ball lands, pops straight up and rolls back into its own pitch mark. There was no need to make an argument that the hop produced a second pitch mark - the pitch mark it was in was his own.

> There was no other pitch mark nearby, so it had to be his pitch mark.

 

Based on the view through a telephoto lens, I think its difficult to tell how far the ball ended up from the original landing spot. It looks to me like its a few feet, but it could be further, and I don't know that I've seen footage that shows the turf 10 or 15 feet away. We really don't know for certain that the initial impact left much of a mark, although it seems probable that it did. But more important, Kuchar never claimed that it was his own initial pitch mark, so it was evaluated by the official based on Kuchar's contention that this was a pitch mark caused by a secondary impact.

[Birdie Mac]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @King_Slender said:

> > If you watch the replays they showed, Kuchar's ball lands, pops straight up and rolls back into its own pitch mark. There was no need to make an argument that the hop produced a second pitch mark - the pitch mark it was in was his own.

> There was no other pitch mark nearby, so it had to be his pitch mark.

But he said it wasn't, but part of the pitch mark where the ball rested was the result of a secondary bounce into an existing pitch mark. Rickie was trying to argue it was embedded, which it wasn't, and Kuchar sat there grinning like a Cheshire cat. Guarantee he enjoyed every second of that foolishness.

 

[sui generis]

For me, the interesting part of the episode wasn't whether or not the ball met the requirements of Rule 16 for free relief. (If refereeing were a La-Z-Boy experience, think how the PGA Tour could save boatloads of money.)

 

Referees get "worked" by some players, sometimes briefly and once in awhile for a longer time. This one was the latter and the player was trying on a novel argument . . . one with little chance, but he tried. That the ball was embedded, perhaps not in the original pitchmark (there was little convincing evidence that it was Kuchar's pitchmark) but in a minor one made by a rebounding ball.

 

The drama became interesting when the player asked for second opinion. (While the 2019 Rules do not entitle the player to a second opinion, they do allow the referee to seek assistance. Most referees that I have worked with will grant the player's request.)

 

An experienced referee will put out a call and when the 2nd opinion ref shows up, the first will retreat to his cart and not discuss the situation with the new ref. That's an intellectually honest behavior since he wants the player to have the chance to make his case to an unprejudiced source. Our goal is to "get it right" not "to be proved right."

[the bishop]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @King_Slender said:

> > > If you watch the replays they showed, Kuchar's ball lands, pops straight up and rolls back into its own pitch mark. There was no need to make an argument that the hop produced a second pitch mark - the pitch mark it was in was his own.

> > There was no other pitch mark nearby, so it had to be his pitch mark.

>

> Based on the view through a telephoto lens, I think its difficult to tell how far the ball ended up from the original landing spot. It looks to me like its a few feet, but it could be further, and I don't know that I've seen footage that shows the turf 10 or 15 feet away. We really don't know for certain that the initial impact left much of a mark, although it seems probable that it did. But more important, Kuchar never claimed that it was his own initial pitch mark, so it was evaluated by the official based on Kuchar's contention that this was a pitch mark caused by a secondary impact.

 

I watched it unfold live and at one point the camera was far enough back that you could see a pitch mark similar in size and shape to the one Kuchar's ball ended up in that was to the left of that and back maybe a couple of yards at most.

[Lodestone]

my post of 114 was made before I saw the video on post 92. I don't see that settling into its own pitch mark. I certainly wouldn't buy that it was definitive that it did. And I like Kuchar just fine... I don't blame him for asking, but I think he should have given up on it a lot sooner.

Anyway, it's no big deal. He mad par. Darn good par. All in all not a good look for the Kooch.

[aliikane]

Kuchar's main argument was that the ball broke new ground in the existing pitch mark. So, he was trying to argue that if the ball had broke new ground in the existing pitch mark, is it considered his ball's pitch mark. However, it was really a stretch and just a waste of time that held up the course and fellow players, though. He should of just took the first official's ruling and moved on.

[cdnglf]

A life of cheapness

The golf gods are disapprove

Karma kills Kuchar

[bladehunter]

> @thevaporz said:

> Uh oh, dust off your Zapruder tapes and call Oliver Stone. This is why I hate jury duty.

>

> The "real" footage that is available on millions of dvr boxes clearly shows the ball bounce forward. Now you're coming with someone scrubbing footage and camera technology excuse? What's next, you're gonna tell me the earth is flat? Use common sense. Have you ever seen a ball make two pitch marks?

 

define forward. How far do you see ? I say it goes backward less than 4/5 inches. And then clearly hops forwards a few inches on second bounce. I suspect it rolls into the pitch Mark.

[bladehunter]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @NoodleSalad said:

> > Oh look, Eddie Pepperell is back with more "hot takes" from his barcalounger in the UK. You'd think he'd shut it for a while after his previous tweet about getting ultra-violent with American fans who are too loud, but no. And people in this forum just clap like seals for everything he says. I hope he gets heckled to pieces next time he's here. I'll do it myself if I'm in the area.

>

> The clapping seals find Eddie amusing.

> Maybe Kuchar will catch up with Eddie at the next event and punch him square in the back of the neck.

Yea. I thought he was funny for a second. But he runs his mouth way to reckless for a guy his size. Here we call it alligator mouth with hummingbird a**.

 

[Golfer4Life]

Brought to you by El Cheapo, No Gimme Golf.

[Lodestone]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @thevaporz said:

> > Uh oh, dust off your Zapruder tapes and call Oliver Stone. This is why I hate jury duty.

> >

> > The "real" footage that is available on millions of dvr boxes clearly shows the ball bounce forward. Now you're coming with someone scrubbing footage and camera technology excuse? What's next, you're gonna tell me the earth is flat? Use common sense. Have you ever seen a ball make two pitch marks?

>

> define forward. How far do you see ? I say it goes backward less than 4/5 inches. And then clearly hops forwards a few inches on second bounce. I suspect it rolls into the pitch Mark.

 

if you need a definition of "forward", I'd recommend you buy a dictionary.

[bladehunter]

> @Lodestone said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @thevaporz said:

> > > Uh oh, dust off your Zapruder tapes and call Oliver Stone. This is why I hate jury duty.

> > >

> > > The "real" footage that is available on millions of dvr boxes clearly shows the ball bounce forward. Now you're coming with someone scrubbing footage and camera technology excuse? What's next, you're gonna tell me the earth is flat? Use common sense. Have you ever seen a ball make two pitch marks?

> >

> > define forward. How far do you see ? I say it goes backward less than 4/5 inches. And then clearly hops forwards a few inches on second bounce. I suspect it rolls into the pitch Mark.

>

> if you need a definition of "forward", I'd recommend you buy a dictionary.

 

He knew what I meant. Define how far forward. I can’t understand how anyone claims it went 2-3 feet or yards forward. It’s travel forward and back is in inches.

[sui generis]

Couch potatoes are rarely reliable fact givers. Players, caddies, referees, observers and spectators more often are. No one (apart from other couch potatoes) cares what you La-Z-Boy referees saw on TV. You weren't there, you operate on incomplete information.

[jc88]

I saw the video a couple times, didnt think it ended up in its own pitch mark

[Lodestone]

> @"sui generis" said:

> For me, the interesting part of the episode wasn't whether or not the ball met the requirements of Rule 16 for free relief. (If refereeing were a La-Z-Boy experience, think how the PGA Tour could save boatloads of money.)

>

> Referees get "worked" by some players, sometimes briefly and once in awhile for a longer time. This one was the latter and the player was trying on a novel argument . . . one with little chance, but he tried. That the ball was embedded, perhaps not in the original pitchmark (there was little convincing evidence that it was Kuchar's pitchmark) but in a minor one made by a rebounding ball.

>

> The drama became interesting when the player asked for second opinion. (While the 2019 Rules do not entitle the player to a second opinion, they do allow the referee to seek assistance. Most referees that I have worked with will grant the player's request.)

>

> An experienced referee will put out a call and when the 2nd opinion ref shows up, the first will retreat to his cart and not discuss the situation with the new ref. That's an intellectually honest behavior since he wants the player to have the chance to make his case to an unprejudiced source. Our goal is to "get it right" not "to be proved right."

 

I don't remember, did the first ref do what you describe in your last paragraph? I've never noticed this, and it makes perfect sense.

[ray9898]

Where did all the people go claiming the ball went forward several yards? Funny how that works after the video is posted.

 

....but they were able to use it to whine on the internet. They will pack up and go to the next outrage in their little world.

[TaddNOhio]

I'm really just not sure about all of this .... can i get a third opinion

[sui generis]

> @Lodestone said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > For me, the interesting part of the episode wasn't whether or not the ball met the requirements of Rule 16 for free relief. (If refereeing were a La-Z-Boy experience, think how the PGA Tour could save boatloads of money.)

> >

> > Referees get "worked" by some players, sometimes briefly and once in awhile for a longer time. This one was the latter and the player was trying on a novel argument . . . one with little chance, but he tried. That the ball was embedded, perhaps not in the original pitchmark (there was little convincing evidence that it was Kuchar's pitchmark) but in a minor one made by a rebounding ball.

> >

> > The drama became interesting when the player asked for second opinion. (While the 2019 Rules do not entitle the player to a second opinion, they do allow the referee to seek assistance. Most referees that I have worked with will grant the player's request.)

> >

> > An experienced referee will put out a call and when the 2nd opinion ref shows up, the first will retreat to his cart and not discuss the situation with the new ref. That's an intellectually honest behavior since he wants the player to have the chance to make his case to an unprejudiced source. Our goal is to "get it right" not "to be proved right."

>

> I don't remember, did the first ref do what you describe in your last paragraph? I've never noticed this, and it makes perfect sense.

 

I was watching for it and as far as I could see from the comfort of my La-Z-Boy, ref #1 backed off right away and didn't seek to influence ref #2.

 

In the non-TV golf world, ref #1 will often only advise arriving ref #2 that the player in the green shirt needs some help. Then, #1 will retreat to the sidelines. (Hours later, in the bar, stories are often swapped.)

[sekrah]

Let's wrap up the facts here..

#1. The ball absolutely finished in its own pitch mark. I honestly cannot believe anyone is disputing that right now. The ground was soft and there were no other pitch marks around. Matt should have gotten relief.

#2. Mark Immelman was a total bozo for flying in with certainty about watching it land and bounce forward a few feet. That wasn't even close to what happened. You saw nothing. Shut your mouth dude.

#3. This bad information caused Matt, who was frustrated by a bad break, to make a really stupid argument about a second hop.

 

[J13]

> @sekrah said:

> Let's wrap up the facts here..

> #1. The ball absolutely finished in its own pitch mark. I honestly cannot believe anyone is disputing that right now. The ground was soft and there were no other pitch marks around. Matt should have gotten relief.

> #2. Mark Immelman was a total bozo for flying in with certainty about watching it land and bounce forward a few feet. That wasn't even close to what happened. You saw nothing. Shut your mouth dude.

> #3. This bad information caused Matt, who was frustrated by a bad break, to make a really stupid argument about a second hop.

>

 

Simmer down chief and go back to the kids table.

[Lodestone]

> @sekrah said:

> Let's wrap up the facts here..

> #1. The ball absolutely finished in its own pitch mark. I honestly cannot believe anyone is disputing that right now. The ground was soft and there were no other pitch marks around. Matt should have gotten relief.

> #2. Mark Immelman was a total bozo for flying in with certainty about watching it land and bounce forward a few feet. That wasn't even close to what happened. You saw nothing. Shut your mouth dude.

> #3. This bad information caused Matt, who was frustrated by a bad break, to make a really stupid argument about a second hop.

>

 

If I make my letters bigger and darker, does that mean I'm right and you are wrong?

[eebomb]

> @J13 said:

> > @sekrah said:

> > Let's wrap up the facts here..

> > #1. The ball absolutely finished in its own pitch mark. I honestly cannot believe anyone is disputing that right now. The ground was soft and there were no other pitch marks around. Matt should have gotten relief.

> > #2. Mark Immelman was a total bozo for flying in with certainty about watching it land and bounce forward a few feet. That wasn't even close to what happened. You saw nothing. Shut your mouth dude.

> > #3. This bad information caused Matt, who was frustrated by a bad break, to make a really stupid argument about a second hop.

> >

>

> Simmer down chief and go back to the kids table.

 

Haha. Classic

[sui generis]

> @sekrah said:

> Let's wrap up the facts here..

> #1. The ball absolutely finished in its own pitch mark. I honestly cannot believe anyone is disputing that right now. The ground was soft and there were no other pitch marks around. Matt should have gotten relief.

> #2. Mark Immelman was a total bozo for flying in with certainty about watching it land and bounce forward a few feet. That wasn't even close to what happened. You saw nothing. Shut your mouth dude.

> #3. This bad information caused Matt, who was frustrated by a bad break, to make a really stupid argument about a second hop.

>

 

Alternative "facts" doth not an argument make.

[SurfDuffer]

I'm not a fan of Kucher at all but the replay was fairly clear to me that his ball popped up and back and then rolled into its own pitch mark. He should have gotten relief.

[bladehunter]

> @"sui generis" said:

> Couch potatoes are rarely reliable fact givers. Players, caddies, referees, observers and spectators more often are. No one (apart from other couch potatoes) cares what you La-Z-Boy referees saw on TV. You weren't there, you operate on incomplete information.

 

Lol. In most or some cases I agree. But in this one I’m certain that my large tv view was better than the refs camera view finder view. He literally only saw it through a 2 inch screen. So no real way you can say that.

 

That being said I think the right call was made. But it was by pure accident. A blind man could have listened to the ball hit , listened to kuchars defense strategy , the. kicked him in the shin , called him a harsh name and told him to shut up , just based on his idiotic wording and have been just as accurate.

[sui generis]

> @SurfDuffer said:

> I'm not a fan of Kucher at all but the replay was fairly clear to me that his ball popped up and back and then rolled into its own pitch mark. He should have gotten relief.

 

If you were there standing just off the fairway in the landing zone and happened to be paying close attention your "fairly clear" might have merit. Otherwise. I don't think you had a better perspective than those on the scene.

[Shilgy]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > I know people are focused on this because of who's involved and an irrational dislike of said player but trust me, this happens more often than you think. I'm not even sure why the kept the camera on it. File it under "if never hurts to ask"

> >

> > You'll notice the players know what words to use when making their arguments but rarely do they get one over on the regular tour officials.

>

> Several points here.

> "irrational dislike" probably.

> "happens more than you think" I seriously doubt it, I've been playing golf since 1984 and I don't ever recall it happening.

>

> "never hurts to ask" True, but I think the point is, is that he would't let it go. He asked for a ruling, got one, then kept arguing a point that he was pretty obviously wrong about, held up play and made a fool of himself. If he would have just asked for a ruling, gotten the ruling and accepting the ruling then I would have had zero issue with it. The entire process was captured on camera and broadcast, the networks must really really have it out for the guy, because they made him look like a tool.....just by showing how he behaves.

 

The network did nothing but present the scene as it unfolded. Kuchar did just fine on his own making himself appear to be a tool.

[Birdie Mac]

Kuchar was aw-shucksing his way through this thing, making it up as he went along, and when he realized he wasn't going to sway the officials to his side, he turned it into a comedy routine for his own amusement.