I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided re-teeing was a better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot hitting down from that bank!
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:26:16 GMT, "Herbert" <herb@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message>news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...>> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the>> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer>> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why>> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks>
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided re-teeing was a>better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot hitting down>from that bank!>
Thanks never thought of that,must have been a helluva lie to walk back there.Cheers
"Herbert" <herb@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:sAb6e.953637$6l.832201@pd7tw2no...>
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message> news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...>> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the>> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer>> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why>> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks>
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided re-teeing was > a> better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot hitting > down> from that bank!>
Can a shot merely be "tough" for one to declare a lie "unplayable"? Hell, on some courses, I get lies in tall fescue that is so gnarly that it could potentially take two whacks at the ball to even get back onto the fairway. In those cases, I would gladly have taken the stroke and distance to re-tee.
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me might not be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...
"Herbert" <herb@nowhere.com> wrote in message> news:sAb6e.953637$6l.832201@pd7tw2no...> >
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message> > news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...> >> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the> >> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer> >> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why> >> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks> >
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided re-teeing was> > a> > better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot hitting> > down> > from that bank!> >
Can a shot merely be "tough" for one to declare a lie "unplayable"? Hell, on> some courses, I get lies in tall fescue that is so gnarly that it could> potentially take two whacks at the ball to even get back onto the fairway.> In those cases, I would gladly have taken the stroke and distance to re-tee.>
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me might not> be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message news:m3hdie5vhl.noisier@officious.yfillom.qua...> "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:>
"Herbert" <herb@nowhere.com> wrote in message>> news:sAb6e.953637$6l.832201@pd7tw2no...>> >
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message>> > news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...>> >> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the>> >> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer>> >> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why>> >> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks>> >
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided re-teeing >> > was>> > a>> > better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot hitting>> > down>> > from that bank!>> >
Can a shot merely be "tough" for one to declare a lie "unplayable"? Hell, >> on>> some courses, I get lies in tall fescue that is so gnarly that it could>> potentially take two whacks at the ball to even get back onto the >> fairway.>> In those cases, I would gladly have taken the stroke and distance to >> re-tee.>>
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me might >> not>> be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...>
...but not curious enough to read rule 28?
I've read Rule 28 before, and there is no practical definition of "unplayable". Rule 28 only states that the player him/herself determines unplayability. My question is about the standards that we, individually, are supposed apply to this definition. If this is a game of honor, then we should be applying some kind of standard instead of declaring, willy-nilly, every lie that we don't like as "unplayable".
The U.S. laws can apply a "reasonable doubt" standard to something as serious as putting somebody to death, but the USGA can't do something similar to defining what is considered "an unplayable lie"?
Again, there are times that I know that with my skill level, I would never be able to play a shot, but know that someone like TW could. Since the USGA is not explicit in Rule 28, I'm probably applying the "if Tiger can hit it" standard when I need not. If the USGA simply stated "if there is NOT a reasonable chance that a golfer with a reasonable level of skill can hit a reasonably successful shot, then the lie can be declared unplayable", it would be a lot less ambiguous than the way the rules are currently written.
ROG 28 "The player may deem his ball unplayable at any place on the course except when the ball is in a water hazard. The player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is unplayable."
"Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ke6e.134>
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me might > not be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...>
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message> news:m3hdie5vhl.noisier@officious.yfillom.qua...> > "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:> >
"Herbert" <herb@nowhere.com> wrote in message> >> news:sAb6e.953637$6l.832201@pd7tw2no...> >> >
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message> >> > news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...> >> >> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the> >> >> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer> >> >> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why> >> >> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks> >> >
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided re-teeing> >> > was> >> > a> >> > better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot hitting> >> > down> >> > from that bank!> >> >
Can a shot merely be "tough" for one to declare a lie "unplayable"? Hell,> >> on> >> some courses, I get lies in tall fescue that is so gnarly that it could> >> potentially take two whacks at the ball to even get back onto the> >> fairway.> >> In those cases, I would gladly have taken the stroke and distance to> >> re-tee.> >>
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me might> >> not> >> be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...> >
...but not curious enough to read rule 28?>
I've read Rule 28 before, and there is no practical definition of> "unplayable".
Of course there is, "the player is the sole judge..."
If you want to declare the ball unplayable[*], then go ahead.
[*] When it lies on the course and not in a water hazard.
If the USGA simply stated "if there is NOT a> reasonable chance that a golfer with a reasonable level of skill can hit a> reasonably successful shot, then the lie can be declared unplayable", it> would be a lot less ambiguous than the way the rules are currently written.
[sarcasm] Yeah, a sentence with two vague phrases in it ('reasonable chance', 'reasonably successful') would be a great improvement over leaving the decision entirely up to the player.
"Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:yWe6e.326$dT4.273@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
The U.S. laws can apply a "reasonable doubt" standard to something as > serious as putting somebody to death, but the USGA can't do something > similar to defining what is considered "an unplayable lie"?
The shot is unplayable any time the player thinks it is to his advantage to take a stroke and distance penalty rather than play it as it lies. No more definition than that is necessary because the penalty for making the call is so severe. You could stripe it down the middle of the fairway into a perfect lie and declare it unplayable. But why would you?
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message news:m3d5t25syn.encouraging@unforgeable.ralucsum.gab...> "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:>
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message>> news:m3hdie5vhl.noisier@officious.yfillom.qua...>> > "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:>> >
"Herbert" <herb@nowhere.com> wrote in message>> >> news:sAb6e.953637$6l.832201@pd7tw2no...>> >> >
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message>> >> > news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...>> >> >> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to >> >> >> the>> >> >> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the >> >> >> announcer>> >> >> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught >> >> >> why>> >> >> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks>> >> >
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided >> >> > re-teeing>> >> > was>> >> > a>> >> > better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot >> >> > hitting>> >> > down>> >> > from that bank!>> >> >
Can a shot merely be "tough" for one to declare a lie "unplayable"? >> >> Hell,>> >> on>> >> some courses, I get lies in tall fescue that is so gnarly that it >> >> could>> >> potentially take two whacks at the ball to even get back onto the>> >> fairway.>> >> In those cases, I would gladly have taken the stroke and distance to>> >> re-tee.>> >>
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me might>> >> not>> >> be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...>> >
...but not curious enough to read rule 28?>>
I've read Rule 28 before, and there is no practical definition of>> "unplayable".>
Of course there is, "the player is the sole judge..."
It's not a "PRACTICAL definition" because the USGA is leaving it to each player to be his/her own "judge". So, if I'm my own judge, then this rule essentially means I make up my own rule. In a practical sense, that is not a REAL rule. It means there is no rule.
They would have been better off just allowing you, without restriction, to replay the last shot with a penalty. Then, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever because there's nothing to "judge". You can do it for whatever reason you see fit or for no reason at all.
If you want to declare the ball unplayable[*], then go ahead.>
[*] When it lies on the course and not in a water hazard.>
If the USGA simply stated "if there is NOT a>> reasonable chance that a golfer with a reasonable level of skill can hit >> a>> reasonably successful shot, then the lie can be declared unplayable", it>> would be a lot less ambiguous than the way the rules are currently >> written.>
[sarcasm]> Yeah, a sentence with two vague phrases in it ('reasonable chance',> 'reasonably successful') would be a great improvement over leaving> the decision entirely up to the player.
Doofus, people are locked up for multiple life sentences on a "reasonable doubt" standard. Applying the word "reasonable" to this rule is much better than "you be your own judge, but we won't give you any guidelines at all".
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message news:m38y3q5qhy.forwardness@formalizations.seilrednu.sag...> "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:>
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message>> news:m3d5t25syn.encouraging@unforgeable.ralucsum.gab...>> > "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:>> >
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in >> >> message>> >> news:m3hdie5vhl.noisier@officious.yfillom.qua...>> >> > "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:>> >> >
"Herbert" <herb@nowhere.com> wrote in message>> >> >> news:sAb6e.953637$6l.832201@pd7tw2no...>> >> >> >
"Seafarer" <Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message>> >> >> > news:4258e5e7.713921@news.wanadoo.co.uk...>> >> >> >> I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to>> >> >> >> the>> >> >> >> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the>> >> >> >> announcer>> >> >> >> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught>> >> >> >> why>> >> >> >> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks>> >> >> >
Probably was in an unplayable lie situation, and he decided>> >> >> > re-teeing>> >> >> > was>> >> >> > a>> >> >> > better option that hitting his third from the bank. Tough shot>> >> >> > hitting>> >> >> > down>> >> >> > from that bank!>> >> >> >
Can a shot merely be "tough" for one to declare a lie "unplayable"?>> >> >> Hell,>> >> >> on>> >> >> some courses, I get lies in tall fescue that is so gnarly that it>> >> >> could>> >> >> potentially take two whacks at the ball to even get back onto the>> >> >> fairway.>> >> >> In those cases, I would gladly have taken the stroke and distance >> >> >> to>> >> >> re-tee.>> >> >>
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me >> >> >> might>> >> >> not>> >> >> be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...>> >> >
...but not curious enough to read rule 28?>> >>
I've read Rule 28 before, and there is no practical definition of>> >> "unplayable".>> >
Of course there is, "the player is the sole judge...">>
It's not a "PRACTICAL definition" because the USGA is leaving it to each>> player to be his/her own "judge". So, if I'm my own judge, then this rule>> essentially means I make up my own rule. In a practical sense, that is >> not a>> REAL rule. It means there is no rule.>>
They would have been better off just allowing you, without restriction, >> to>> replay the last shot with a penalty. Then, there would be no ambiguity>> whatsoever because there's nothing to "judge". You can do it for whatever>> reason you see fit or for no reason at all.>>
If you want to declare the ball unplayable[*], then go ahead.>> >
[*] When it lies on the course and not in a water hazard.>> >
If the USGA simply stated "if there is NOT a>> >> reasonable chance that a golfer with a reasonable level of skill can >> >> hit>> >> a>> >> reasonably successful shot, then the lie can be declared unplayable", >> >> it>> >> would be a lot less ambiguous than the way the rules are currently>> >> written.>> >
[sarcasm]>> > Yeah, a sentence with two vague phrases in it ('reasonable chance',>> > 'reasonably successful') would be a great improvement over leaving>> > the decision entirely up to the player.>>
Doofus, people are locked up for multiple life sentences on a "reasonable>> doubt" standard. Applying the word "reasonable" to this rule is much >> better>> than "you be your own judge, but we won't give you any guidelines at >> all".>
Why would that be better when the point of the rule is that> the player may invoke it at his option without qualification> (other than the [*] above)?
Then the rule should be stated that you can replay any shot (except those that end up in a hazard) with a penalty for any reason whatsoever. The way the rule is currently written, it seems that the USGA is trying hard to uphold the tenet of "play the ball where it lies", yet they understand there are times that it wouldn't be practical (for any human being) to do so. The USGA has no idea how to define when it would not be practical, so they say "you be the judge". It's a total cop out. Again, they should explicitly say that you can replay any stroke (with asterisk) you want with a penalty.
Then the rule should be stated that you can replay any shot (except those> that end up in a hazard) with a penalty for any reason whatsoever. The way> the rule is currently written, it seems that the USGA is trying hard to> uphold the tenet of "play the ball where it lies", yet they understand there> are times that it wouldn't be practical (for any human being) to do so. The> USGA has no idea how to define when it would not be practical, so they say> "you be the judge". It's a total cop out.
Or, the goal is to allow the use of the Rule at all times (with snipped asterisk) rather than try to define it.
Again, they should explicitly say> that you can replay any stroke (with asterisk) you want with a penalty.
That is what is said (except that 'replay' is misleading and implies that the ball must be played from the spot of the previous stroke).
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message news:m34qee5owo.calcify@birefringence.htorez.van...> "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:>
<big snip>>
Then the rule should be stated that you can replay any shot (except those>> that end up in a hazard) with a penalty for any reason whatsoever. The >> way>> the rule is currently written, it seems that the USGA is trying hard to>> uphold the tenet of "play the ball where it lies", yet they understand >> there>> are times that it wouldn't be practical (for any human being) to do so. >> The>> USGA has no idea how to define when it would not be practical, so they >> say>> "you be the judge". It's a total cop out.>
Or, the goal is to allow the use of the Rule at all times (with> snipped asterisk) rather than try to define it.
But I don't think the USGA really wants to allow the use of the rule at all times. That's why it's placed under a rule called "Ball Unplayable". Otherwise, the rule should be called "A ball that you'd rather not hit from where it lies".
Again, they should explicitly say>> that you can replay any stroke (with asterisk) you want with a penalty.>
That is what is said (except that 'replay' is misleading and implies> that the ball must be played from the spot of the previous stroke).
I decided to re-read Rule 28, and there are actually no provisions for taking "stroke and distance" (what I've been referring to as "replay"), which was the speculated reason for Garcia going back to the tee. This rule does allow you to drop the ball at any distance away from the hole (conceivably as far back as the tee) provided that you keep the original spot between the hole and where you drop it. But in Garcia's case, it would have to have been somewhere behind the green--not in front of it. Therefore, I don't think Garcia declared an unplayable lie.
"Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OQg6e.1107$dT4.207@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...>
I decided to re-read Rule 28, and there are actually no provisions for > taking "stroke and distance" (what I've been referring to as "replay"), > which was the speculated reason for Garcia going back to the tee.
Oops. I read this part wrong:
a. Play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
"John E. Quest" <no_email_thanks@not-a-real-address.com> wrote in message> news:m34qee5owo.calcify@birefringence.htorez.van...> > "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> writes:> >
<big snip>> >
Then the rule should be stated that you can replay any shot (except those> >> that end up in a hazard) with a penalty for any reason whatsoever. The> >> way> >> the rule is currently written, it seems that the USGA is trying hard to> >> uphold the tenet of "play the ball where it lies", yet they understand> >> there> >> are times that it wouldn't be practical (for any human being) to do so.> >> The> >> USGA has no idea how to define when it would not be practical, so they> >> say> >> "you be the judge". It's a total cop out.> >
Or, the goal is to allow the use of the Rule at all times (with> > snipped asterisk) rather than try to define it.>
But I don't think the USGA really wants to allow the use of the rule at all> times. That's why it's placed under a rule called "Ball Unplayable".> Otherwise, the rule should be called "A ball that you'd rather not hit from> where it lies".
The first sentence says that the player may "...deem his ball unplayable..." If the player's the one who deems the ball unplayable (again, subject to the previous asterisk) then it can be used at any time.
Again, they should explicitly say> >> that you can replay any stroke (with asterisk) you want with a penalty.> >
That is what is said (except that 'replay' is misleading and implies> > that the ball must be played from the spot of the previous stroke).>
I decided to re-read Rule 28, and there are actually no provisions for> taking "stroke and distance" (what I've been referring to as> "replay"),
Well, except for part (a) of the rule.
which was the speculated reason for Garcia going back to the tee. This rule> does allow you to drop the ball at any distance away from the hole> (conceivably as far back as the tee) provided that you keep the original> spot between the hole and where you drop it. But in Garcia's case, it would> have to have been somewhere behind the green--not in front of it. Therefore,> I don't think Garcia declared an unplayable lie.>
On 10-Apr-2005, Seafarer@freeserve.co.uk (Seafarer) wrote:
I missed the Garcia shot on a par three when he had to return to the> tee box and play sroke and distance.The last I heard was the announcer> saying he was on the bank just over the green but I never caught why> he had to play S&D. What did miss?Thanks
He didn't have to pick stroke & distance, he chose to. Sometimes it is best. Tiger did the same thing with his putt to the creek.
On 10-Apr-2005, "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can a shot merely be "tough" for one to declare a lie "unplayable"? Hell, on> some courses, I get lies in tall fescue that is so gnarly that it could> potentially take two whacks at the ball to even get back onto the fairway.> In those cases, I would gladly have taken the stroke and distance to re-tee.>
Does the USGA even define "unplayable"? What's unplayable for me might not> be unplayable for a touring pro. Just curious...
On 10-Apr-2005, "Fred Taylor" <freddyt@yahoo.com> wrote:
They would have been better off just allowing you, without restriction, to> replay the last shot with a penalty. Then, there would be no ambiguity> whatsoever because there's nothing to "judge". You can do it for whatever> reason you see fit or for no reason at all.
Agreed, especially since that's the effect of the current rule.
3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina 13 April 2007 16:14:30 [ permanent link ]
"Earl from So Calif" <ekess@webtv.net> wrote in message news:21440-461F1254-110@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
What, if anything, did Garcia recieve for spitting in the hole during
the tournament?
I'm more concerned with the sunflower seeds, cigarette butts, and cigar ash on the greens. And didn't the subject come up a few years ago when the players were instructed to stop spitting on the greens?
