Wyndam Clark (again ?)

[nsxguy]

I guess we'll see a bit later.

 

Clark chipped up towards the hole, chunked it a bit and knew it was coming back to his feet.

 

Just after hitting the shot, in frustration, he takes a little whack at the divot and chews up a llittle bit more.

 

Then, as the ball is starting to come back he steps on the divot - to take care of the course ? 

 

Minute or 2 later after he hits again and gets it to the hole, the announcers go to the USGA rules official on call.

 

They're going to have a talk with Wyndam, apparently to ask if he was taking care of the course. By the time they get to him I expect he'll realize what he did and say "Just tried to fix the course a bit".

 

He appeared (to me) to be frustrated and annoyed as he stepped on the divot hole. He certainly made no additional effort to "take care of the course". 

b. Prohibited Actions to Alter Other Physical Conditions

A player must not deliberately take any actions listed in Rule 8.1a (except as allowed in Rule 8.1b, c or d) to alter any such other physical conditions to affect:

• Where the player’s ball might go or come to rest after their next stroke or a later stroke, or

• Where the player’s ball at rest might go or come to rest if it moves before the stroke is made (for example, when the ball is on a steep slope and the player is concerned that it might roll into a bush).

Exception – Actions to Care for the Course: There is no penalty under this Rule if the player alters any such other physical conditions to care for the course (such as smoothing footprints in a bunker or replacing a divot in a divot hole).

[limegreengent]

 Nsxguy

You have descibed the incident very well. The hole in question was hole number 10  for information purposes.👏

it is very plain that the player was well aware that the ball was going to return in the vicinity from where he played the stroke.
However the rule in question is not Rule 8.2 which specifically states that rule does not apply to a ball in motion and that the relevant rule in this scenario would be  11.3.

 

Rule 11.3 does not consider “ Care of the Course “ in its application.

 

 

The Committee will have to determine whether the player :-

‘ DELIBERATELY took actions for “THE PURPOSE “ of affecting where his ball “ IN MOTION “ might come to rest ‘

 

Was the player’s  actions for that specific purpose or a knee jerk response to a bad stroke.

 

As the player “did not appear”  to look completely at the roll / route of the ball at the time he took his actions - I would imagine that he will escape any penalties.

 

NB . The commentary to which you refer was not broadcast on my viewing in the UK..

 

Well spotted and pretty sure that this player hasn’t  a clue about what he can and cannot  do.👏

 

Edited June 15 by limegreengent

[iacas]

They addressed this on the telecast and even mentioned Camilo Villegas and how what used to be a penalty is not one anymore (under most circumstances).

[nsxguy]

22 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

However the rule in question is not Rule 8.2 which specifically states that rule does not apply to a ball in motion and that the relevant rule in this scenario would be  11.3.

 

I admit I was a bit confused with the wording in the bullet point in my OP "Where the player’s ball might go or come to rest after their next stroke or a later stroke"

 

"after" confused me as I thought it should say "before".

 

BUT, the official on TV definitely suggested they had to ask Clark what he was thinking and, the Clarification of 11.3 suggests intent is a mitigating factor.

 

"Examples where there is no penalty, and in stroke play the ball must be played where it comes to rest, include when:

 

A player’s ball lies in the general area at the bottom of a slope. The player makes a stroke and the ball begins to roll back down the slope. Unaware that the ball was returning to the area from where it had been played, the player presses down a raised piece of turf without any intent to affect where the ball might come to rest.  There is no penalty even if the ball comes to rest in the pressed down area."

 

There's that word "intent" again. LOL

 

Thanks.

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

They addressed this on the telecast and even mentioned Camilo Villegas and how what used to be a penalty is not one anymore (under most circumstances).

 

Strange goings on around here.

 

I clicked on the notification that you had commented on the thread and nothing came up. It did just recently.

 

 

Anyway, I'd gone out (can't sit watching golf for 7 hours, even the U.S. Open) so I hadn't heard anything about it since.

 

So they went with "intent" then. OK, I guess I can see that - personally I don't think he had intent. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Didn’t he and his caddie trample down the rough by manically pacing back and forth before take a drop in a recent tournament.  Thus effectively preventing his ball from dropping down into the rough and letting him get clean contact and a decent flight.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Didn’t he and his caddie trample down the rough by manically pacing back and forth before take a drop in a recent tournament.  Thus effectively preventing his ball from dropping down into the rough and letting him get clean contact and a decent flight.

Please don't make things up. 🙄

[Pnwpingi210]

39 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Please don't make things up. 🙄

I’m not, maybe it was somebody else.  I thought it was at pebble beach maybe?
 

 I’ll delete the post if I’m wrong

 

edit - it was sawgrass.  12th hole.  I can’t find the video

Edited Sunday at 12:08 AM by Pnwpingi210

[Pnwpingi210]

18 hours ago, sui generis said:

Please don't make things up. 🙄

pages 27 and 28 are where people are discussing Clark’s and his caddies behavior before the  drop I mentioned.  
 

yes my original post was a hyperbole, no I didn’t make the incident up.  Others noticed and commented on it.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 05:29 PM by Pnwpingi210