Bush...? What Bush? (wgc semi-final ruling)

ShriekingSheet

Briefly mentioned on the tournament thread but worth a further look imo.

Scenario: Poulter's ball is in/behind a small bush on the 7th. TV tower is roughly half-way between him and the flag, about 80 yards away.

Rule: If the TV tower is in his line of play, he gets a free drop sideways, til he has a clear line.

Referee/Poulter Discussion
So Poulter wants to drop out of the bush, as he claims he is going to hack the ball through the bush towards the green. The Match Refree says that the ball can't go through the bush, so going toward the pin is not a "viable line of play". He says the only shot available is to the left of the bush, and the TV tower is not blocking that shot, so no free drop.
The Chief Referee is called, and asks if Poulter would hit the shot for the pin if the tower wasn't there. Poulter says yes, so a free drop is awarded.

Outcome
The free drop would be into a cactus, so Poulter opts not to take the drop, plays to th left, away from the thick of the bush, and still only moves the ball a short distance.

Right or Wrong?
Judging by the shot he actually hit, going through a light part of the bush to the left, there is no way he could have gotten any distance through the centre of the bush. So there's a case to be made that the TV tower wasn't in his line of play. That said, if there's a 1% chance the ball does have a way through, he's entitled to a drop.
The problem is, if he's denied a free drop, tries the shot and gets it far enough so it actually strikes the TV tower (proving it was a viable line of play), the referee will be in serious trouble. But it does seem there wasn't any chance of the ball going through.
Note that taking the Match Referee's logic, if the tower had have been to the left, where he suggested Poulter's only viable line of play was, and not between him and the flag, he would have given a free drop on that basis.

Taking a similar scenario, with a ball slightly back behind a tree, what if a player claims they can hook it around the tree?

The point is, it's a rare example of a need for a subjective view on the rules. You can't have an objective view of which lines of play are viable and which aren't. It's up to the referee to judge if the player has a chance of hitting a recovery shot, which is an odd situation to have, but is there any alternative way to have the rule? The chief's way of making it objective was basically to take the view that if the player says it's a viable option, it's a viable option. But this can't hold water when the bush is twice a big and thick, and it clearly isn't an option, but the player says it is.

What would a referee have done at Medinah in 1999 if there had have been a TV tower short/left of the green a guy said "I know I'm behind a tree with 170 yards to go, and the TV tower is not between me and the flag, but I'm going to blast a 7 iron, missing the tree in front of me by a couple of inches, and slide it 60 yards left to right in the air, onto the green... but there's a TV tower in my way... can I have a free drop?"

Trampas

Case of using the rules to your advantage.

Daithio9

The player should always be consulted as to his intended line of play and in Poulters case I think they got it spot on in the end and it doesn't matter that he didn't play his shot on the line that he indicated he would have taken when asked by the referee.
It's the same idea as when your taking a "club lenght" drop, you can use any club you like to ascertain how much relief you get and you don't have to use that club to play the shot.
In the hypothetical Sergio scenario, I don't see any reason why he would not have been entitled to a drop if there was a TV tower obstructing his intended line of play.

irishtoffee

Poulter was spot on.

ShriekingSheet

Daithio9 wrote: »

The player should always be consulted as to his intended line of play ... it doesn't matter that he didn't play his shot on the line that he indicated he would have taken when asked by the referee.

Yes, but if you leave it to the players to indicate their line of play, and the tower is 60 yards to the right, they can say "oh yeah, I want to hit it over there" and get a free drop.

And though that sounds silly and farcical, if someone was let do it, it would be a...

Trampas wrote: »

Case of using the rules to your advantage.

So consult them by all means, but taking what the player says as fact is not "viable" imo.

Daithio9

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Yes, but if you leave it to the players to indicate their line of play, and the tower is 60 yards to the right, they can say "oh yeah, I want to hit it over there" and get a free drop.

And though that sounds silly and farcical, if someone was let do it, it would be a...



So consult them by all means, but taking what the player says as fact is not "viable" imo.

You are right it does.
I think you'll find when a little bit of common sense and grey matter are applied, between them the player and the rules offical will more often than not arrive at the correct ruling.
Anyway I don't think you'll have to worry too much about that particular rule Shrieking unless your thinking of playing on tour.

stockdam

It's a difficult decision.

Maybe the rulings need to be clarified.

If the tower was between Poulter and the green and if it was possible (doesn't mean probable) then he has the right to get a drop.

Personally I'd prefer to see a rule where they have to play it and if it hits the tower then they can have another go. However this may be impossible to enforce.......what if there's a risk of injury? The player may opt to hack at it but if say he hits the tower then he may not like having to risk injury for a 2nd time.

I don't like rulings where a lie is improved. But over a period of time all players will benefit (some will get a ruling that helps them win whereas others will get a "good" ruling when they have no chance of making the cut).

In Poulters case he has every right to say that the tower is restricting his options. One option would be to go for the green even if it looks an "impossible" shot. A viable option would not be to hit a driver 300 yards backwards (if the tower was behind the tee box).

Rules sometimes unfairly penalise (a bunker which is full of water). I think in this case as I said his realistic options were restricted by the tower.

Russman

Its an interesting one alright.
The broad body of opinion seems to be that Poulter did nothing wrong (which he didn't) and its his perogative as to what option he takes (which it is). Whether thats something the rulemakers should look at is another matter. Is it worth changing the rule for the one or two high profile incidents we see ? Maybe, maybe not. Personally I'd like to see the player have to play the shot he says he'll play - IMO there's no way on earth he would have taken on that shot if the tower wasn't there, like all pros he was simply chancing his arm at a free drop.

Strange that the Mickelson wedge issue a few weeks back had people split on whether it was morally right or not.....:D
Essentially both players abided by the rules, yet the yank is questioned.

ShriekingSheet

Russman wrote: »

Its an interesting one alright.
The broad body of opinion seems to be that Poulter did nothing wrong (which he didn't) and its his perogative as to what option he takes (which it is). Whether thats something the rulemakers should look at is another matter. Is it worth changing the rule for the one or two high profile incidents we see ? Maybe, maybe not. Personally I'd like to see the player have to play the shot he says he'll play - IMO there's no way on earth he would have taken on that shot if the tower wasn't there, like all pros he was simply chancing his arm at a free drop.

Strange that the Mickelson wedge issue a few weeks back had people split on whether it was morally right or not.....:D
Essentially both players abided by the rules, yet the yank is questioned.

Yeah, you can really see the players' point. When it comes to negative rulings, the rules are stone-cold and inflexible, regardless of common sense or logic. So when they see a gap for a positive ruling, they feel they too can exploit it by disregarding common sense and logic.

copacetic

It's not using the rules to your advantage it's cheating. Poulter has to actually give his planned line of play if TV tower wasn't there, he clearly lied. It's up to the player to be honest, like a lot of things in golf. Same way you get relief from some paths/fences etc if they interfere with your actual stance. Pretending you were going to hit a different club or faking to chip out sideways to get a relief you aren't entitled too is cheating. Simple as that.

The kind of player who does it is the kind that you can't trust on their own in the bushes and miraculoulsy 'finds' their ball in a perfect lie that enables them to chip it out while no-one else is around.

PhilipMarlowe

If the tower wasn't there, he may have taken a more direct route, not necessarily straight at the flag but tight enough to the left side of the tower... a place that balanced the risk of going through more/heavier bush with the likely chance of getting up and down from a successful shot.
When he got relief from the tower, his point of relief was going to be potentially worse, i.e. ball ending up in/behind a cactus after a drop.
So he decided against taking the relief and played it as it lied.
Now, because he decided to play as it lied and because the tower was still there (obviously), that does not mean that the line he eventually chose was the exact line he would have chosen had the tower not been there at all.
So you can't chastise him for taking the line he took IMO. I feel he would have taken a more aggressive line had the tower not been there, though still not straight at the flag because the bush looked too heavy on a direct line.

Russman

copacetic wrote: »

. Poulter has to actually give his planned line of play if TV tower wasn't there, he clearly lied. It's up to the player to be honest, like a lot of things in golf.

I think this is the crucial point. Its all well and good using the rules to one's advantage but by saying he would have played towards the pin had the tower not been there I think he's crossed a big line and gone too far. There's no way he would have taken that shot on IMO, it wasn't the tower that was stopping that shot, it was the bush the ball was in.

Juwwi

The fact that he lied to get an advantage while he was coasting along in the lead and looking like winning the match makes it worse imo.

he got sergio involved tho sergio didnt need much encouraging to join in but he also held up the other sem-final which was out of order.

it was ungentlemanly what he did.

PhilipMarlowe

Among other things, the rules state that he gets relief unless "It is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke... because of interference by anything other than the TIO".

Considering that he eventually made a stroke through the bush, albeit at a different angle, the only question is whether you think it would be reasonable to make a stroke towards the green on a line that the tower was in the way. Note, not at the flag. It looked to me from x thousand miles away that it would have been reasonable to take a line at the left side of the tower which would have given a chance of getting up and down. A successful shot to the left of the tower probably would have fecked off the left side of the green.
When he eventually played the shot, he had to be mindful of the tower and took a more conservative line (through less of the bush - looked like a hibiscus to me btw).

IMO, it wasn't clearly unreasonable to make a stroke in the direction of the tower and so he was entitled to relief.

ShriekingSheet

copacetic wrote: »

It's not using the rules to your advantage it's cheating. Poulter has to actually give his planned line of play if TV tower wasn't there, he clearly lied.

I'm not coming down on either side here, but that's way OTT. Your whole point hinges on assuming there was 0% chance of him hacking the ball through the bush, and no one can say for sure, including the Chief Referee who was looking at the thing. The bush could be brittal, the bush could be tough as old rope. We all agree with you, if there was something more solid in his way, like a tree, but it's a bush, so who knows.

copacetic wrote: »

Same way you get relief from some paths/fences etc if they interfere with your actual stance. Pretending you were going to hit a different club or faking to chip out sideways to get a relief you aren't entitled too is cheating. Simple as that.

You don't know how right you are The rule has since changed to prohibit a player making silly stances or taking an unecessary line of play in order to get relief from an Immovable Obstruction that is not in his normal stance or swing. So yes, it's cheating, as you say.

copacetic

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

I'm not coming down on either side here, but that's way OTT. Your whole point hinges on assuming there was 0% chance of him hacking the ball through the bush, and no one can say for sure, including the Chief Referee who was looking at the thing. The bush could be brittal, the bush could be tough as old rope. We all agree with you, if there was something more solid in his way, like a tree, but it's a bush, so who knows.

You don't know how right you are The rule has since changed to prohibit a player making silly stances or taking an unecessary line of play in order to get relief from an Immovable Obstruction that is not in his normal stance or swing. So yes, it's cheating, as you say.

Here knock it off, agreeing an disagreeing in the same post has me all over the place!

For me it's the thin end of the wedge as it were . Next Poulter will be claiming he was going to play left handed or chip with his feet 3 foot ahead of the ball to get relief from a sprinkler or whatever.

Imo there was 0% chance that he could take that line, he knew it, the refs knew it but couldn't 'prove' it. They rely on honesty and honour which Poulter is lacking imo, when they each asked him he lied to them.