RE: Tiger and the boulder

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, disco111 said:

Please, it states as you offered, it can't be picked out easily!!...............that's how the rule is offered. A 1 ton boulder easily falls under the not easily portion of that rule. 

That’s why I emphasized the proper wording. You are thinking about picked “up” easily. That is different than picked “out” as in out of the hole it is embedded in. 
  In your example would it be fair that you could easily pick up a 50 pound rock but a weaker golfer could not? Would it be fair that a strongman could easily pick up or move a 200 pins rock but you could not. 
The key is picked up, not out..  in the rules words matter.

[Obee]

That rock is definitely not embedded. The ruling STANDS!

 

NEXT!!!!

[TiScape]

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Google is your friend

 

 

Fluff trying to move it! 😂 

 

[Shilgy]

7 minutes ago, TiScape said:

The picture I posted? Boulder in my pic. (The same one that was moved for Tiger) is definitely a ton. Says so right on the plaque. 

Fine, it’s a ton. But it was moved enough for Tiger to play it and it was not embedded.

[TiScape]

Just now, Obee said:

That rock is definitely not embedded. The ruling STANDS!

 

NEXT!!!!

I’d say that is technically accurate… Still 🙄 

[Shilgy]

If anyone still has doubts please revive the old thread in the Rules forum and ask the very knowledge group of guys in there.

[Obee]

Just now, TiScape said:

I’d say that is technically accurate… Still 🙄 

Yeah, it's a tough one. The cool thing, to me, is that Tiger wasn't being a jerk about it at all. 

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, TiScape said:

I’d say that is technically accurate… Still 🙄 

Glad you agree……technically accurate is all that matters. Not opinions.

[TiScape]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

Fine, it’s a ton. But it was moved enough for Tiger to play it and it was not embedded.

Not being a smart a**. How much of it would need to below the surrounding earth to be considered embedded by the rule?

[TiScape]

2 minutes ago, Obee said:

Yeah, it's a tough one. The cool thing, to me, is that Tiger wasn't being a jerk about it at all. 

Agreed. 

[Shilgy]

Just now, TiScape said:

Not being a smart a**. How much of it would need to below the surrounding earth to be considered embedded by the rule?

Like I said ….either find the original or start a new thread in the rules forum. They have real experts there that can perhaps explain better than I can.

 

Think about a smaller pebble. You could easily tell it was embedded but still be easily  moved. But you are not allowed to. In this case it was not embedded but was not easy for one person to move but could be moved without unreasonable delay so it is okay.

[TiScape]

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Like I said ….either find the original or start a new thread in the rules forum. They have real experts there that can perhaps explain better than I can.

 

Think about a smaller pebble. You could easily tell it was embedded but still be easily  moved. But you are not allowed to. In this case it was not embedded but was not easy for one person to move but could be moved without unreasonable delay so it is okay.

Oh wow. You responded like you perhaps thought I was giving you a hard time. Not the case. Honestly thought you knew. ✌

Edited May 11, 2021 by TiScape

[Loki]

Ah, this is, again, just another example of Tiger's cavalier attitude with the rules and ethics of the game.  That rock ain't getting moved for anyone BUT Tiger, so while the USGA ruled AFTER the tournament that the move was legal, it should not have been allowed. ROFL. My view is, if you and/or the foursome you are in can't move it, you take an unplayable.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Loki

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, TiScape said:

Oh wow. You responded like you perhaps thought I was giving you a hard time. Not the case. Honestly thought you knew. ✌

All good….

Best of my knowledge there is no precise definition of embedded. Not something like “20% of the impediment “ or the like. I guess it’s like pornography. Ya know it when you see it. Or even, in this case, when you start to try to move the impediment.

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, Loki said:

Ah, this is, again, just another example of Tiger's cavalier attitude with the rules and ethics of the game.  That rock ain't getting moved for anyone BUT Tiger, so while the USGA ruled AFTER the tournament that the move was legal, it should not have been allowed. ROFL. My view is, if you and/or the foursome you are in can't move it, you take an unplayable.

That you Brandel? Following the rules to the letter is not cavalier. And it was legal then and still is.

[TiScape]

10 minutes ago, Loki said:

Ah, this is, again, just another example of Tiger's cavalier attitude with the rules and ethics of the game.  That rock ain't getting moved for anyone BUT Tiger, so while the USGA ruled AFTER the tournament that the move was legal, it should not have been allowed. ROFL. My view is, if you and/or the foursome you are in can't move it, you take an unplayable.

Oh come on! It only took three foursomes to move it! 😂 

[Obee]

13 minutes ago, Loki said:

Ah, this is, again, just another example of Tiger's cavalier attitude with the rules and ethics of the game.  That rock ain't getting moved for anyone BUT Tiger, so while the USGA ruled AFTER the tournament that the move was legal, it should not have been allowed. ROFL. My view is, if you and/or the foursome you are in can't move it, you take an unplayable.

 

What if you're in a fivesome? Or a sixsome (I've played in plenty)? Hell, we play at club in SoCal in a game called "Slammo" where we've gone off as a 14-some.

 

You could re-write that rule to where only if it is moveable by your immediate group and/or their caddies, is it considered moveable. That wouldn't be a bad addition. Stops people who are playing in tournaments from getting treatment that others don't.

 

But hey, if other people can look for your ball, others should be able to help you move a rock, I guess...

[TiScape]

48 minutes ago, TiScape said:

Fluff trying to move it! 😂 

 

Great effort. So close! Hilarious 

 

[bscinstnct]

16 minutes ago, Loki said:

Ah, this is, again, just another example of Tiger's cavalier attitude with the rules and ethics of the game.  That rock ain't getting moved for anyone BUT Tiger, so while the USGA ruled AFTER the tournament that the move was legal, it should not have been allowed. ROFL. My view is, if you and/or the foursome you are in can't move it, you take an unplayable.

 

Tigers cavalier attitude be like,

 

 

 

 

[m d g]

57 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Google is your friend

No. No it isn't.

[bladehunter]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I am sure you were attempting humor but for some reading this thread……

The impediment does not need to be buried in concrete. If it’s just laying on top of the ground it is not embedded.  Note the rule below does not say “cannot be picked UP easily”.  It states picked OUT. Meaning out of the depression or hole. So no matter how large or heavy if laying on top of the ground it can be moved.
 

Such natural objects are not loose if they are:
    •    Attached or growing,
    •    Solidly embedded in the ground (that is, cannot be picked out easily), or
    •    Sticking to the ball.

We can’t defy Darwin’s law and explain everything to those without a funny bone.  Let them fend for themselves!! 
 

 

was just responding to the idea that courses placed boulders as obstructions and shouldn’t be allowed to be moved. If that’s the case.  Sinkem in concrete and prove it.  Otherwise it’s movable. Right ? 

.  

[bscinstnct]

24 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

We can’t defy Darwin’s law and explain everything to those without a funny bone.  Let them fend for themselves!! 
 

 

was just responding to the idea that courses placed boulders as obstructions and shouldn’t be allowed to be moved. If that’s the case.  Sinkem in concrete and prove it.  Otherwise it’s movable. Right ? 

.  

Blade!

 

If you listen closely to the video...

 

 

Tiger asks, it’s not a pebble but is it a loose impediment?

 

Official says, it’s movable, if you can ask people to move it for you

 

Tiger, Rrrrreally? 🤣

 

Thats gold!

 

 

...Now compare to Bryson talking the ear off the poor official about ants....

 

"Anything right there?" DeChambeau asked. "What is this thing? There's two of them."

 

"I don't see anything that would identify as to what it is to know that it's an animal hole," Tackett said.

 

"It is or it isn't," DeChambeau complained, "and there's a red ant coming out of it, a couple of them."

 

At that point, Tackett asked

DeChambeau to take his stance as if he was going to hit his second shot.

 

"I mean, it doesn't interfere with your stance anyway," Tackett said. "It's not an animal hole."

 

Thats so lame 🙄

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, TiScape said:

Great effort. So close! Hilarious 

 

Certainly didn’t look to be embedded.

 

3 hours ago, m d g said:

No. No it isn't.

In my reference it is. Easy way to find the boulder video.

[dalehead]

And the purpose of revisiting this very old topic is what?

 

Instead of wasting our time on this we should be discussing whether Arnold Palmer should have been given relief for an embedded ball in the 1960 Masters.

[grm24]

18 minutes ago, dalehead said:

And the purpose of revisiting this very old topic is what?

 

Instead of wasting our time on this we should be discussing whether Arnold Palmer should have been given relief for an embedded ball in the 1960 Masters.

There is no purpose except for a few here to continue to rag on Tiger for something that took place 22 years ago that didn't violate the ROG. Those people need to let this go and get over themselves.

 

As for Palmer and the Masters I'd imagine most people at WRX have no idea of that situation.

Edited May 11, 2021 by grm24

[golfortennis]

12 hours ago, Obee said:

 

What if you're in a fivesome? Or a sixsome (I've played in plenty)? Hell, we play at club in SoCal in a game called "Slammo" where we've gone off as a 14-some.

 

You could re-write that rule to where only if it is moveable by your immediate group and/or their caddies, is it considered moveable. That wouldn't be a bad addition. Stops people who are playing in tournaments from getting treatment that others don't.

 

But hey, if other people can look for your ball, others should be able to help you move a rock, I guess...

 

I would limit it to the player and their caddie.  The posts about "is it fair to a 90lb woman" have some validity, but I view it the same way some guys hit it longer.  Some people are just blessed.

 

But when you can have a gallery move something that they wouldn't move for another player, I think the fairness question brought up before goes out the window.

 

[smashdn]

3 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

Some people are just blessed.

 

Some people have a great skill at eyeballing distances accurately.  Some want range finders.

Some practice and learn to hit balls from sketchy lies.  Some want free relief from divots.

 

There is always going to be those who want the game to be easier for them and those that appreciate the inherent difficulties that provide the test and the fun.  It is supposed to be a challenge afterall.

[Scotty1140]

If I knew this would still get peoples' undies in a twist 20 years later I would have had the boulder moved too. 

[Dpavs]

18 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Bryson?....afraid of ants 🐜

 

That's not what is going on here... what he is saying... is.. "A little help finding my ball here please... every time I look down, I am blinded by my shoes."

Edited May 11, 2021 by Dpavs

[2bGood]

For those that want a rules change - why bother? How many times would this rule actually be needed? I am not aware personally or on tour where this has come up other than once twenty years ago.