Jump to content

Rory Sabbatini DQ'd for non-conforming club


cristphoto
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, sui generis said:

The "rools am stupid" crowd has predictably showed up for this one. (It's been awhile since they could weigh in on divot holes or some other nonsense.) 🙄

 

Lost on them is that, apparently, the miscreant not only knew the Rule but it's reported that he fessed up.

 

 

The divot morons are by far the worst. Whenever one of the YouTube pros or Golf Magazines on Facebook pose the question, it’s absolutely astonishing how many golfers want to be coddled with divots being GUR but yet can’t wrap their brains around why it would be impossible to do so, or how ridiculous the idea is.

 

I always say “okay if you feel that you should be rewarded with a good, clean lie for hitting the fairway, every time you hit a ball in the trees and it kicks back to a favorable spot, you pick your ball up and throw it back in the trees where it should have been. You don’t deserve to be rewarded for hitting a bad shot that ends up in a favorable lie!” That usually shuts them up. 

Bag as of June 2021 Driver - Mizuno STZ w/ Oban Kiyoshi HB 04 Flex 3w - Mizuno STZ w/ Fuji Speeder 757 5w - Mizuno STZ w/ Motore X F3 7S - Mizuno MP-20 MMC 4-6 & MP-20 MB 7-P w/ DG S300 AMT White Wedges Cleveland RTX ZipCore w/ TI S300 Spinner 50/54/58 Putter - L.A.B. Directed Force 2.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

Yes and to what end. This is a rule that is broken extremely rarely to be extreme clarity - nothing added to the face. period. full stop. Why change a rule that preforms extraordinary well.

 

 

For quite a few years I was president of my golf club, as well as holding other offices and being on the committee. Every winter we'd have a pre-season meeting and discuss what to add, subtract, or change in our club's rules.

 

When deciding on member penalties for,,,,,,, whatever,,,,,, our main concern was "does the punishment fit the crime ?"

 

In fact, in "Performance Characteristics Deliberately Changed" the rule says "The most important question to ask when ruling on a club which has had something temporarily applied to the face by a player is “why has it been put there? "

 

I'd suggest that a tracking dot on the face of the club left there by accident does not rise to disqualification.

 

So I would say, no, the rule doesn't perform extraordinarily well (as is) AT ALL.

 

Over the past year the USGA has confirmed that indeed, if one carries a 15th club to the 1st tee, EVEN IF he shows the club to the other players and leaves it OUTSIDE of his bag (say inside a cart somewhere) and tells them that specific club is out of play, it is still 2 strokes per hole to a maximum of 4 strokes. I don't see how THAT punishment fits the crime either.

 

But it's good to know the Rule(s).

 

 

  • Like 3

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Hzrdus Yellow HC 6.0 Stiff

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP

Adams Idea Pro 20* Aldila Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300 Yellow Dot

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Cally PM Grind 56 KBS Tour 115

LAB Directed Force (Today)

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A professional Tour caddie should check the equipment prior to his/her  player striking the first shot of the round.

Cleveland TL310 10.5* driver

Cleveland HB Launcher 15* 3-wood

Srixon H65  19* 3 hybrid and 22* 4 hybrid

Mizuno MP63 5 thru 9-iron

Cleveland RTX 48-52-56-64 wedges

Scotty Cameron Classic III putter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 5:13 PM, Newby said:

So why is it included in the Rule named

Performance  Characteristics  Deliberately  Changed  which includes the words The  purpose  of  this Rule ......  and  ..... during  a  round ?

 

The words do not say what the drafter seemingly intended

 

You’re quoting rule 4 so if you go to I believe it’s at the end of part two you’ll see the language that applies to this situation. 

 

I think you’re not understanding that there is a standard for conformance of alterations during a round and another for what constitutes a conforming club before the round.

 

To me it seems like you are just reading way too much into the rules so I’m not sure how to explain it in a way that would clear things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules should fit the crime.  Fitting Dots offer no change to help the player.  Should be no penalty 

  • Like 1

TM Sim2MaxD 10.5* Vnts Blue 6x

Ping G400 5w 16.5* GD AD DJ 6x

Ping G400 7w 19.5* GD AD BB 7s

Cally Apex '16 4h 23* Matrix 92x

Cally Apex ‘19 5h 26* Matrix 92x

Cally X frgd ‘18 UT 27* ADDI 85x
Mizuno 919t 7 - GW Fuji MCI 100s
Ping Glide OG 54* & 59*ES SF 125s

Piretti Matera Elite torched
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way to allow stuff like that is to make specific exemptions that allow these specific cases.  

Someone gets DQed and then a committee can decide to make that OK in the future.

 

Obviously there is no way to predict future disqualifications.

 

Edited by ShortGolfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

The rules should fit the crime.  Fitting Dots offer no change to help the player.  Should be no penalty 

 

The "law" is crystal clear. The "crime" is player (and caddie) negligence. Anyhow, this stuff only happens to millionaires, so who cares? 😉

Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cardoustie said:

The rules should fit the crime.  Fitting Dots offer no change to help the player.  Should be no penalty 

The Rule as it stands is clear, you can't apply any type of tape or similar material to the face of a club, if you do its non-conforming.  Can you suggest a way to write a rule that differentiates between these dots and any other type of tape or coating that a player could apply to the clubface?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, davep043 said:

The Rule as it stands is clear, you can't apply any type of tape or similar material to the face of a club, if you do its non-conforming.  Can you suggest a way to write a rule that differentiates between these dots and any other type of tape or coating that a player could apply to the clubface?  

 

The basics are already there in the rule itself.

 

"The most important question to ask when ruling on a club which has had something temporarily applied to the face by a player is “why has it been put there?"

 

The phrase above suggests intent is important here.

 

But the main(?) objection here seems to be the penalty.

 

Can you offer a suggestion as to why it's an immediate DQ and not say, the general penalty for the 1st occurrence and DQ for a 2nd ?

 

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Hzrdus Yellow HC 6.0 Stiff

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP

Adams Idea Pro 20* Aldila Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300 Yellow Dot

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Cally PM Grind 56 KBS Tour 115

LAB Directed Force (Today)

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Can you offer a suggestion as to why it's an immediate DQ and not say, the general penalty for the 1st occurrence and DQ for a 2nd ?

I'd say its a matter of consistency.  The penalty for making a stroke with any non-conforming club is DQ, regardless of reason the reason the club is non-conforming, regardless of the player's intent.  Tape or other "stick-ons" are simply and clearly not allowed.  I think to define differing penalties based on intent, or type of non-conformance would needlessly complicate the rules.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I'd say its a matter of consistency.  The penalty for making a stroke with any non-conforming club is DQ, regardless of reason the reason the club is non-conforming, regardless of the player's intent.  Tape or other "stick-ons" are simply and clearly not allowed.  I think to define differing penalties based on intent, or type of non-conformance would needlessly complicate the rules.

 

I'd buy that explanation but do you realize how many exceptions there are in the ROG. The rules are replete with that particular word.

 

The DQ in this case is the equivalent of someone getting life for stealing a candy bar putting a can of tuna in their pocket, forgetting to pay for it and getting the electric chair. (OK, so that's a bit of an exaggeration but,,,,,,,,,,,,)

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Hzrdus Yellow HC 6.0 Stiff

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP

Adams Idea Pro 20* Aldila Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300 Yellow Dot

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Cally PM Grind 56 KBS Tour 115

LAB Directed Force (Today)

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'd buy that explanation but do you realize how many exceptions there are in the ROG. The rules are replete with that particular word.

As with many potential exceptions that might be made, its important to be able to clearly write an enforceable rule, and I'm not sure where the line should be drawn in these cases.  To me, this is best left the way it is now.  The Rule is perfectly clear, perfectly enforceable, and consistent with other instances where a nonconforming club is used for a stroke.  As vocal as Rory has been at times, I never heard a peep from him about his DQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, davep043 said:

As with many potential exceptions that might be made, its important to be able to clearly write an enforceable rule, and I'm not sure where the line should be drawn in these cases.  To me, this is best left the way it is now.  The Rule is perfectly clear, perfectly enforceable, and consistent with other instances where a nonconforming club is used for a stroke.  As vocal as Rory has been at times, I never heard a peep from him about his DQ.

 

Consistency is (usually) a good thing. 👍

 

If a player adjusts his driver during the round AND USES it after adjusting it there's a penalty.

 

If the player does NOT use the adjusted club AND re-adjusts it to put it back the way it was previously and then uses it there's no penalty.

 

Seems to me if a player has a non-conforming club that would BE conforming if adjusted back to its conforming state there should be no penalty.

 

THAT sounds pretty consistent to me. Dunno1.gif

 

But the main point still holds. The punishment should fit the crime. I don't see how anybody could believe that's the case here.

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Hzrdus Yellow HC 6.0 Stiff

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP

Adams Idea Pro 20* Aldila Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300 Yellow Dot

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Cally PM Grind 56 KBS Tour 115

LAB Directed Force (Today)

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Our picks


×
×
  • Create New...