Rory's Drop

[Newby]

3 hours ago, Colin L said:

@Newby

I just typed @ and the first letter of Sui and unexpectedly  up popped a menu of members' names beginning with S.  Select the name you want and you get that button.

@Colin L

Got it!

 

But what made you type the @ in the first place?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

@Colin L

Got it!

 

But what made you type the @ in the first place?

 

Intuition? Intelligence? Hint from a grandchild?

 

Take your pick 😉

[QEight]

18 hours ago, Newby said:

@Colin LBut what made you type the @ in the first place?

@ is widely used for tagging people on numerous different platforms.

[Newby]

3 minutes ago, QEight said:

@ is widely used for tagging people on numerous different platforms.

Well, I've learned something today

[Mr. Bean]

40 minutes ago, Newby said:

Well, I've learned something today

 

That's why we are spending our time on this forum, to learn.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, QEight said:

@ is widely used for tagging people on numerous different platforms.

Which is why I typed @, thinking however that I would also have to type the whole name after it.  Those clever people at GolfWRX were ahead of my and filled it in for me and provided a button.                                                                                                

[Naptime]

I suspect this is why casual golfers just play by casual rules, i.e. take a stroke and drop and let's move on.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Naptime said:

I suspect this is why casual golfers just play by casual rules, i.e. take a stroke and drop and let's move on.

You are right, casual golfers play casual golf.

 

However, competitive golf is a different world. Let us not mix them.

[Mike412]

It’s interesting they took the time to discuss this but not the subject of Clark’s ball appearing to move. Not saying it did or didn’t, but it was as much or more of a controversy as the Rory drop so I would have liked to hear clarification on both.

[sui generis]

39 minutes ago, Mike412 said:

controversy

 

The only "controversy" seemed to be amongst those unfamiliar with the Definition of "moved."

 

Moved 

 

When a ball at rest has left its original spot and come to rest on any other spot, and this can be seen by the naked eye (whether or not anyone actually sees it do so).

 

This applies whether the ball has gone up, down or horizontally in any direction away from its original spot.

 

If the ball only wobbles (sometimes referred to as oscillating) and stays on or returns to its original spot, the ball has not moved.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=41

[Mike412]

45 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

The only "controversy" seemed to be amongst those unfamiliar with the Definition of "moved."

 

Moved 

 

When a ball at rest has left its original spot and come to rest on any other spot, and this can be seen by the naked eye (whether or not anyone actually sees it do so).

 

This applies whether the ball has gone up, down or horizontally in any direction away from its original spot.

 

If the ball only wobbles (sometimes referred to as oscillating) and stays on or returns to its original spot, the ball has not moved.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=41

Oh I’m familiar and I do believe it could have “moved” by the letter of the definition of “move”. In the video I saw it appeared to roll back and stop. The point is if they took the time to address Rory’s drop, they should have took the time to address the move, wobble, oscillation, or whatever.

 

Again not saying it did or didn’t but I feel it deserved acknowledgement by the USGA especially since he won by 1 stroke.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Mike412

[Augster]

OMG. I just watched Rory’s drop again and put it up on YouTube. 
 

The “reference point” was in the right direction as the pin was WAY LEFT of Rory’s ball. 

 

What the ref did, and they talk about it in the video, was Rory’s “reference point” was incorrectly given “within 1 CL of the embedded ball” and then he got ANOTHER CL for his drop. I have no idea how the ref botched such a simple drop. The RP on an embedded ball is always next to the embedded ball. 

 

In essence, Rory got 2CL’s which put him on top of the bunker in the flat. 
 

If played correctly, dropping within 1CL, the ball would have rolled into the bunker, twice, and THEN he’d find the nearest point where it would come to rest. 
 

So he would have had to play the shot backhanded or stand in the bunker and chop it. 
 

Brutal miscarriage of the Rules. I had no idea it was botched this badly. If he would have taken that drop WITHOUT a ref there, he’d certainly be DQ’d for a serious breach. 
 

Video below. 
 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Augster

[Newby]

21 minutes ago, Augster said:

OMG. I just watched Rory’s drop again and put it up on YouTube. 
 

The “reference point” was in the right direction as the pin was WAY LEFT of Rory’s ball. 

 

What the ref did, and they talk about it in the video, was Rory’s “reference point” was incorrectly given “within 1 CL of the embedded ball” and then he got ANOTHER CL for his drop. I have no idea how the ref botched such a simple drop. The RP on an embedded ball is always next to the embedded ball. 

 

 

The reference point is The spot in the general area right behind where the ball is embedded.

 

The ref deemed the place 'right behind' to be in the bunker as the face was vertical.

 

The spot where he placed a marker was seemingly deemed by the ref to be the nearest point not in the bunker. He the made his only drop within 1cl from that marker.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Newby

[Mr. Bean]

That video tells me that the referee did not know what she was doing.

[Augster]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

That video tells me that the referee did not know what she was doing.

100%. 
 

At least they went the right direction based on the pin placement. 
 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Augster said:

What the ref did, and they talk about it in the video, was Rory’s “reference point” was incorrectly given “within 1 CL of the embedded ball” and then he got ANOTHER CL for his drop. I have no idea how the ref botched such a simple drop. The RP on an embedded ball is always next to the embedded ball. 

 

In essence, Rory got 2CL’s which put him on top of the bunker in the flat. 

 

No, that's incorrect.

 

She incorrectly applied the idea of "nearest point" which was in the general area and not in the bunker as being 18" or so to the right. She didn't consider "directly below" as being a valid reference point. That was the mistake.

 

The reference point was not "within 1 club length of the embedded ball" (I mean, 18" is, but that's not what she was doing).

 

4 hours ago, Augster said:

Brutal miscarriage of the Rules. I had no idea it was botched this badly. If he would have taken that drop WITHOUT a ref there, he’d certainly be DQ’d for a serious breach.

 

You're going about a thousand miles too far with your language there and disparaging someone who knows, applies, and understands the Rules of Golf orders of magnitude better than you, I'd wager.

 

4 hours ago, Newby said:

The reference point is The spot in the general area right behind where the ball is embedded.

 

The ref deemed the place 'right behind' to be in the bunker as the face was vertical.

 

The spot where he placed a marker was seemingly deemed by the ref to be the nearest point not in the bunker. He the made his only drop within 1cl from that marker.

 

Exactly. She took him out sideways until there was a reference point on which he could drop; she didn't consider that the reference point could be "in thin air" and thus directly BELOW the embedded golf ball.

 

And I doubt most everyone here would have thought of that, too.

 

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

That video tells me that the referee did not know what she was doing.

 

That's only a hundred miles too far, but in the same category as Augster up above.

[Augster]

She gave him a reference point on top of the bunker. It was easily 1CL away from the embedded ball. Then gave him another CL for the drop. 
 

Relief for embedded ball:

 

Reference Point: The spot in the general area right behind where the ball is embedded.

 

The RP could never be on top of the bunker. The actual RP should have been just to the right of the “hole” the embedded ball made in the face. It’s grass, so it’s not in the bunker. “Right behind” means exactly that. Not “nearly 1CL behind”. 
 

From that RP he could likely drop on top of the bunker, like where he marked his incorrect RP. That’s about where he’d drop. Or where his ball would end up after two drops and trying to place the ball in the nearest point it’ll come to rest. 
 

Then he’d face either a backhand chip, or a chest level chop while he’s standing in the bunker. 
 

Hopefully this will be a learning moment for the USGA and they’ll revise the embedded ball relief RP from “right behind” to “anywhere no closer to the hole”. This will make it more fair for the field. 
 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

5 minutes ago, Augster said:

Hopefully this will be a learning moment for the USGA and they’ll revise the embedded ball relief RP from “right behind” to “anywhere no closer to the hole”. This will make it more fair for the field. 

 

You might consider rewording your suggestion to something besides "anywhere no closer to the hole". 

 

dave

[Newby]

9 minutes ago, Augster said:

She gave him a reference point on top of the bunker. It was easily 1CL away from the embedded ball. Then gave him another CL for the drop. 
 

Relief for embedded ball:

 

Reference Point: The spot in the general area right behind where the ball is embedded.

 

The RP could never be on top of the bunker. The actual RP should have been just to the right of the “hole” the embedded ball made in the face. It’s grass, so it’s not in the bunker. “Right behind” means exactly that. Not “nearly 1CL behind”. 
 

From that RP he could likely drop on top of the bunker, like where he marked his incorrect RP. That’s about where he’d drop. Or where his ball would end up after two drops and trying to place the ball in the nearest point it’ll come to rest. 
 

Then he’d face either a backhand chip, or a chest level chop while he’s standing in the bunker. 
 

Hopefully this will be a learning moment for the USGA and they’ll revise the embedded ball relief RP from “right behind” to “anywhere no closer to the hole”. This will make it more fair for the field. 
 

 

The referee, mistakenly it turns out, determined the point 'right behind' was in the bunker. Subsequently the committee found that the face was not absolutely vertical. No one knows if the ball would have remained at rest if an attempt had been made to place the ball on the near vertical face. If it did not, a place in the general area would have to be found where it would.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, Augster said:

She gave him a reference point on top of the bunker. It was easily 1CL away from the embedded ball. Then gave him another CL for the drop.

• First, that wasn't "easily" 1 CL away, and I'll again ask that you stop with that. According to the people who were there, it was "12-18 inches."
• Second, she thought the face was vertical, and so any point "behind" was in the bunker, and so she sought the nearest point in the general area. If the bunker face had a different slope, or a different curve to it, she may have found a place quite close, even if she thought the part with Rory's ball was "vertical."
• Third, she established that point "on top" as the reference point, so of course he would get one club length from there.

Again, you're being very dramatic with your language. It's disrespectful, and I don't think you'd have handled it perfectly had you been in the situation. I think very few people here would have established the RP "below" the golf ball.

 

20 minutes ago, Augster said:

The RP could never be on top of the bunker.

 

Maybe not in this instance, but her goal was not to get "on top of the bunker." She was simply trying to find the nearest reference point in the general area (i.e. not in the bunker), as she thought the area "right behind" was in the bunker (or thin air above the bunker).

 

20 minutes ago, Augster said:

The actual RP should have been just to the right of the “hole” the embedded ball made in the face.

 

That's not behind; that's beside. The same direction she went. She just went farther because she thought the face was vertical for awhile.

 

20 minutes ago, Augster said:

“Right behind” means exactly that. Not “nearly 1CL behind”.

 

Again, it was not "nearly 1 CL" and the direction she went was horizontal, seeking the nearest point. Rory didn't drop too much farther away than he would have, because the RP was 12-18" from where it should have been, and he didn't drop at the outer limits of his 1 CL relief.

 

2 minutes ago, Newby said:

The referee, mistakenly it turns out, determined the point 'right behind' was in the bunker. Subsequently the committee found that the face was not absolutely vertical. No one knows if the ball would have remained at rest if an attempt had been made to place the ball on the near vertical face. If it did not, a place in the general area would have to be found where it would.

 

Yes… And that spot would have been the RP she established, which would have put his stance in the bunker.

 

But, he wouldn't have dropped there, so it's a moot point: he'd have measured one club length basically from just below where the ball was embedded, then still had plenty of room to drop up on top. He may have had to stand with his heels in the air, but he could have dropped and played a shot from up there.

[nsxguy]

6 hours ago, Newby said:

The reference point is The spot in the general area right behind where the ball is embedded.

 

The ref deemed the place 'right behind' to be in the bunker as the face was vertical.

 

The spot where he placed a marker was seemingly deemed by the ref to be the nearest point not in the bunker. He the made his only drop within 1cl from that marker.

 

I couldn't really hear much of that video and I'm trying to think of a bunker wall where the top would/could be further from the pin than the rest of the wall below that point. So I'm thinking that "behind the ball" would also include immediately below the ball IF the face was totally vertical.

 

What do they do at the Open Championship with all those vertical revetted walls ? Surely this has happened any number of times, no ?

 

So I think he could've dropped 1 CL to the right of the ref point and MIGHT have gotten out of the bunker. It looks to me like 1CL would've taken him roughly to where her stomach is, which IS outside the bunker and IN the GA.

 

And since it was a relatively short chip shot, his stance may not have been too much adversely affected.

 

 

1 hour ago, Augster said:

She gave him a reference point on top of the bunker. It was easily 1CL away from the embedded ball. Then gave him another CL for the drop. 
 

Relief for embedded ball:

 

Reference Point: The spot in the general area right behind where the ball is embedded.

 

The RP could never be on top of the bunker. The actual RP should have been just to the right of the “hole” the embedded ball made in the face. It’s grass, so it’s not in the bunker. “Right behind” means exactly that. Not “nearly 1CL behind”. 
 

From that RP he could likely drop on top of the bunker, like where he marked his incorrect RP. That’s about where he’d drop. Or where his ball would end up after two drops and trying to place the ball in the nearest point it’ll come to rest. 
 

Then he’d face either a backhand chip, or a chest level chop while he’s standing in the bunker. 

 

 

IF she applied the rule correctly (for reference point) he might have been able to stand outside the bunker and chip the ball (it was a greenside bunker) - but maybe not,,,, or it'd have been very awkward.

 

But see Pagel's quote below. Apparently, the reference point CAN be elsewhere.

 

(Pagel USGA) “The nearest point of relief was mis-identified; it should have been directly behind the ball," said Thomas Pagel, the USGA’s chief governance officer. "If there’s no area immediately behind the ball, you go to nearest point in the general area. But if you look at where the ball was embedded, there was a grassy area below and that should have been the starting point."

 

Now he doesn't specifically say that (moved to outside the bunker) "nearest point" IS the reference point but apparently he had no problem with the 1 CL from there (other than it being the wrong ref point that is).

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, Augster said:

She gave him a reference point on top of the bunker. It was easily 1CL away from the embedded ball. Then gave him another CL for the drop. ........

Hopefully this will be a learning moment for the USGA and they’ll revise the embedded ball relief RP ....

 

I'd venture to suggest that it should be a learning moment for yourself.  There are several things you could  learn:

1, The R&A/USGA radically changed  relief from an embedded ball when there is no reference point in the general area immediately behind the ball. 

2. As a result, the reference point might well be not just a club length away from immediately behind the ball but many clublengths away. There is in fact no measurement for it as the distance depends on entirely on where the nearest spot  is that can be established in the general area.

3. The change is to be found in  Clarification 16.3b/1 which was new in the 2023 Rule and which has been well referenced in this thread already. You should try reading it.  It's quite instructive as to what the referee in this situation was doing. It's easily found:

https://www.randa.org/rog/interpretations/rule-16

4. But without doubt, the key matter to learn is not to denigrate and defame a referee from a position of such evident ignorance. 

[Newby]

16.3b/1  This procedure also applies when a ball ........  embeds in the wall or face right above a bunker. (New)

Edited July 2, 2023 by Newby

[Newby]

8 hours ago, Newby said:

The referee, mistakenly it turns out, determined the point 'right behind' was in the bunker. Subsequently the committee found that the face was not absolutely vertical. No one knows if the ball would have remained at rest if an attempt had been made to place the ball on the near vertical face. If it did not, a place in the general area would have to be found where it would.

The referee was on the spot at the time but when did Pagel view the area? Assuming it was some time later, did he actually find and see the hole in which the ball was embedded? Did the referee 'shortcut' and believe the ball would not stay at rest at the point below and 'just behind'? Did Pagel actually test that spot to prove that it would?

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, Newby said:

The referee, mistakenly it turns out, determined the point 'right behind' was in the bunker. Subsequently the committee found that the face was not absolutely vertical. No one knows if the ball would have remained at rest if an attempt had been made to place the ball on the near vertical face. If it did not, a place in the general area would have to be found where it would.

 

Maybe I am missing something here but as iacas earlier pointed out there is no Rule requiring a ball to stay at rest on the reference point. Based on the video there was a RP very close to the original spot of the ball and a ball dropped within 1 cl from there would most likely not have stayed at rest and the next step would have been trying to place the ball. The final outcome would have been that Rory would have had his ball placed very close to the edge of the bunker and he would have had to either play left handed or stand in the bunker to play his ball. He got a massive benefit.

 

I repeat myself by saying the referee did not know what she was doing, even if she knows the Rules and how to apply them better than most of us. Everyone makes mistakes but this was a big one and should have been avoided. She must have been under a lot of pressure.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, nsxguy said:

But see Pagel's quote below. Apparently, the reference point CAN be elsewhere.

 

 

I believe that fact has already been established long time ago.

 

What bothers me in Pagel's words is that he was not at the scene and cannot possibly say for sure if there was a RP behind the ball or not. But from the video it is evident that there was a RP much closer than where the referee established it finally.

[Colin L]

44 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Maybe I am missing something here but as iacas earlier pointed out there is no Rule requiring a ball to stay at rest on the reference point. Based on the video there was a RP very close to the original spot of the ball and a ball dropped within 1 cl from there would most likely not have stayed at rest and the next step would have been trying to place the ball. The final outcome would have been that Rory would have had his ball placed very close to the edge of the bunker and he would have had to either play left handed or stand in the bunker to play his ball. He got a massive benefit.

 

I repeat myself by saying the referee did not know what she was doing, even if she knows the Rules and how to apply them better than most of us. Everyone makes mistakes but this was a big one and should have been avoided. She must have been under a lot of pressure.

 

You're making a huge assumption based on a video from a camera located where in relation to where the ball was embedded and to the verticality of the face and to the location of the hole etc.   Were you looking at a 3 dimensional, life-sized image?  Did it give.you a chance to look down the face from immediately above the ball?

 

It's just not on to make an armchair judgment  like that and worse to use it to pass  judgment on the referee .  It's hard to believe you actually wrote "the referee did not know what she was doing..."   I'm surprised and a bit shocked at that and definitely    As for " we all make mistakes...", maybe it's a language thing, but it comes across as unduly patronising.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Colin L

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Based on the video there was a RP very close to the original spot of the ball

 

Here's the thing… she was there, you were not. You're basing your judgment on video, and she was looking for the nearest RP. So if in her estimation it was 12-18" from the embedded ball… then you're likely quite wrong in what you're saying, as she was there and doing the same thing you're trying to do.

 

In other words, she was there, in person, doing what you say you're doing but you're only using video. She was looking for "the closest earth in the general area." That was 12-18" away. She didn't consider that it may be below the ball.

 

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

You're making a huge assumption based on a video from a camera located where in relation to where the ball was embedded and to the verticality of the face and to the location of the hole etc.   Were you looking at a 3 dimensional, life-sized image?  Did it give.you a chance to look down the face from immediately above the ball?

 

It's just not on to make an armchair judgment  like that and worse to use it to pass  judgment on the referee .  It's hard to believe you actually wrote "the referee did not know what she was doing..."   I'm surprised and a bit shocked at that and definitely    As for " we all make mistakes...", maybe it's a language thing, but it comes across as unduly patronising.

 

It's horrible phrasing. The referee knows what she was doing, and neither Mr. Bean nor Augster were there.

 

I'm curious, too, how Pagel knows that the face wasn't vertical. What if the face was actually slightly slanted… but the other way (so the top hung out over the bunker somewhat)? Could the reference point have been above the ball slightly?

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Here's the thing… she was there, you were not.

 

Neither was Pagel...

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Neither was Pagel...

 

I'm not talking to Thomas Pagel, am I? I'm talking to you. You're the one saying things like:

 

On 7/1/2023 at 1:37 PM, Mr. Bean said:

That video tells me that the referee did not know what she was doing.