Rory's Drop

[Mr. Bean]

@iacas: There is nothing I could possibly say that would satisfy you as you are always right.

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

@iacas: There is nothing I could possibly say that would satisfy you as you are always right.

 

Opinions aren't "right" or "wrong."

 

Based on the facts (such as "@Mr. Bean wasn't there"), I'm of the opinion that you are being much too harsh toward the referee when you say things like "she didn't know what she was doing."

[Augster]

The Ruling Bodies apologists in this thread is odd. I can see the video. The pin is well left. There is grass all around the “hole” Rory’s ball left. 
 

I have circled all the grass that is outside the bunker. The pin is to the left where I put the red line. The point “right behind” the embedded ball is the yellow dot. “Right behind” is in relation to the pin. It has to be. There is clearly plenty of grass to drop in, and touch, “right behind” the embedded ball. 
 

 

IF, truly, let’s say the face was completely vertical, THEN could Rory’s “next closest point” “right behind” the ball be where the ref pointed out the RP that they eventually used? Sure. I can see that. 
 

BUT, if that were the case, why the statement from the USGA on how the on site ref botched the RP?

 

So there really is no “need” for any of us to be there, on site, the way this played out. I’m sure before the USGA posted a recant of this drop, someone must have asked the ref, “Was the face COMPLETELY vertical?”  If her answer was “No” then the spot they used had to be incorrect. Even a face one degree off the vertical will allow a drop that hits the course inside the GA. It’ll likely bounce into the bunker twice. Then they’ll place the ball over and over to find a spot it’ll come to rest. 
 

If the face were completely vertical, the RP used would have been a good spot. Someone in the higher ups must have looked at the spot after the competition, or asked the ref about it, and determined the face wasn’t completely vertical. Otherwise, the USGA would never have recanted on the ruling. 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Augster said:

IF, truly, let’s say the face was completely vertical, THEN could Rory’s “next closest point” “right behind” the ball be where the ref pointed out the RP that they eventually used? Sure. I can see that.
 

BUT, if that were the case, why the statement from the USGA on how the on site ref botched the RP?

 

Because, again, the nearest point is actually below the ball.

 

13 minutes ago, Augster said:

If her answer was “No” then the spot they used had to be incorrect.

 

Her answer was likely that yes, the face was vertical. But the proper reference point was below the embedded ball. The referee went laterally, searching for the nearest RP without considering going "below." Do you think a referee chosen by the USGA for their biggest tournament of the year (and with the last few groups) doesn't know how to find the nearest horizontal reference point? A referee that has worked at the Masters, the U.S. Open, etc.?

 

 

13 minutes ago, Augster said:

Even a face one degree off the vertical will allow a drop that hits the course inside the GA. It’ll likely bounce into the bunker twice. Then they’ll place the ball over and over to find a spot it’ll come to rest.

 

He wouldn't have tried to drop there on the vertical face: he'd drop within the 1 CL laterally, on the ground in which the referee is kneeling in your image, on the top side.

 

13 minutes ago, Augster said:

If the face were completely vertical, the RP used would have been a good spot.

 

You still haven't got it.

 

The reference point should have been right below the embedded ball. The referee misinterpreted the rule/clarification and took Rory to a point about 12-18" to the right because the area right behind the ball was thin air. The referee didn't consider going downward, but should have. She went horizontally until she found the nearest RP.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Augster said:

The Ruling Bodies apologists in this thread is odd.

 

I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one. 😉

[Mr. Bean]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Because, again, the nearest point is actually below the ball.

 

 Rule 16.3b says behind, not below.

[karstens_ghost]

On 7/2/2023 at 5:06 AM, Augster said:

 

 

 

So the main complaint is that the USGA thought that the point from where his sideways tee peg was to the sand was not "vertical"?

 

In a game on the ground, dropping immediately behind was over bunker. That is how vertical works. If you want to get particularly picky, where his tee peg was, removed 1.62" back, was directly over sand with nothing to touch.

 

I still cannot see why the USGA fried this referee. The more I see it, the more it looks dead-on correct as long as you're willing to challenge that the USGA missed the definition of vertical here. The relief point (in space) is only z-above bunker. This isn't even some 70º might hit a blade of grass.

 

And if you accept that this was vertical to the degree it was over sand, what was the purpose of calling out the ref?

 

I still don't understand that part… it's a bunker wall, and looks vertical-enough on this video.

 

If you need a protractor to make a measurement of what degree constitutes "vertical" above 80+º, we're all in trouble.

[Mr. Bean]

Having pondered over this quite a while I start to think that maybe the grass on the face is so long that there is no ground behind the ball but the sand. Then again, is that a requirement or does grass suffice? After all, in rough a ball is seldom sitting on the ground but on the grass.

[Colin L]

10 hours ago, Augster said:

The Ruling Bodies apologists in this thread is odd. I can see the video.... etc... etc..

Since you can see the video, you can see the referee down on her knees looking down from above the ball.  Have you devised a more accurate way of seeing whether there is any general area vertically below behind the ball using a video?

 

Even a face one degree off the vertical will allow a drop that hits the course inside the GA...

Will it?  I take you have carefully calculated this and can show us that the vertical from immediately behind a ball embedded on an 89 degree bunker face with 21.325 mm ball protruding from the face (that's half of it) can never touch the sand.   As my maths teacher always insisted, show your workings.

 

Clearly whether behind a ball embedded on an inclined face is vertically above the sand will depend on three factors:  the inclination of the face, the amount by which the ball protrudes from the face and the height of the ball above the sand.

 

The simple matter is that a referee made her best judgement and someone came along from the USGA,  made a different judgment ( how we don't know but did he use a plumbline?) and unfortunately made a statement about it, a statement which in no way justifies the kind of derogatory language being directed at the referee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 Rule 16.3b says behind, not below.

 

YOU have even said "below" in a few posts here. The clarification says the nearest point, it doesn't specify horizontally. That's the best I can figure with why Pagel had to come out and say something:

 

“The nearest point of relief was mis-identified; it should have been directly behind the ball,” said the USGA’s chief governance officer, Thomas Pagel. “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.”

 

The other article contains the same quote, and the referee also said (paraphrasing) "I took him to the nearest earth in the general area, as the area behind the ball was thin air, but I should have gone below the ball."

 

This quote also appears in the second post in this topic (thanks @DaveLeeNC). And @nsxguy has a picture.

 

On 6/27/2023 at 9:28 PM, nsxguy said:

 

 

Why does it seem like you've forgotten what you had typed before (a post I replied to with agreement):

 

On 6/30/2023 at 4:53 AM, Mr. Bean said:

So the video I linked IS the actual video with the ball buried in the face with no GA behind that ball but BELOW.

 

I wonder how accurately one must measure in such situations. As Colin asked before, do we have to have a water scale in the equipment of a referee in the future? And is it enough to have a single leaf of grass protruding from the face to make the reference point?

 

I wonder by which means the USGA people decided there was a reference point behind the ball as none of them were actually at the scene...

 

And yet, then you later say stuff to the effect of "the referee clearly had no clue what she was doing."
 

6 hours ago, karstens_ghost said:

I still cannot see why the USGA fried this referee. The more I see it, the more it looks dead-on correct as long as you're willing to challenge that the USGA missed the definition of vertical here. The relief point (in space) is only z-above bunker. This isn't even some 70º might hit a blade of grass.

 

I don't really get it either. I also don't think we're measuring "no closer to the hole" in three dimensions, as the reference point would have to be behind the entire part of the ball. Dirt is what matters here - not blades of grass sticking out sideways.

 

This type of stuff, along with knowledge of who the referee is, is why I'm pushing back against the people slamming the referee.

[antip]

It sure would be a simpler rule to apply if RBs published some clear diagrams. I have seen nothing written that explains their requirements clearly.

[Chunkitgood]

My cynicism says the whole discussion is designed to hide the likelihood the ball wasn’t really embedded.

 

My says it’s pretty simple the ref was wrong.

[sui generis]

2 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

My cynicism says the whole discussion is designed to hide the likelihood the ball wasn’t really embedded.

 

My says it’s pretty simple the ref was wrong.

 

You're entirely wrong about #1.

 

As to #2, it seems that the referee applied 16.3b/1 – Taking Embedded Ball Relief When Spot Immediately Behind Ball is Not In General Area, but the Committee thought there was a simpler solution.

[karstens_ghost]

3 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

My cynicism says the whole discussion is designed to hide the likelihood the ball wasn’t really embedded.

 

My says it’s pretty simple the ref was wrong.

 

The tee peg he put in to mark it was horizontal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  If that's not embedded, I'm not sure we're in the same physical world or using the same language...

[Newby]

4 hours ago, karstens_ghost said:

 

The tee peg he put in to mark it was horizontal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  If that's not embedded, I'm not sure we're in the same physical world or using the same language...

What has the position of the tee peg got to do with the ball being embedded?

Or are you saying the tee peg was embedded?

[Mr. Bean]

54 minutes ago, Newby said:

What has the position of the tee peg got to do with the ball being embedded?

Or are you saying the tee peg was embedded?

 

I guess they mean that a horisontal peg implicates a vertical wall and a ball cannot stay 'on' a vertical wall without being embedded.

 

Unfortunately that logic is false as a peg can be stuck into the ground horizontally even if the wall is not vertical at all.

[karstens_ghost]

Yes, I meant it was embedded. It was embedded. Even the USGA in their questioning of the ruling didn't question whether or not it was embedded. That was never up for debate until Chunkit came in here with that flat-earth take, and the two of you went with it.

 

Unreal.