It’s been a very busy couple of
weeks here, and the tournament season is definitely in full swing. In between sending players off and then bringing
them in I want to follow up on “Dropgate II” made a slightly larger issue
thanks to Johnny Miller, notably not my favorite announcer.
On the 14th hole in the
final round of the Player’s Championship, Tiger Woods hooked his ball high and
left into the lateral water hazard. With
the help and consultation of his fellow-competitor Casey Wittenberg, they
determined the point they believed that the ball last crossed the margin of the
hazard and Tiger dropped accordingly (and correctly). And overhead shot from the blimp caused
Johnny Miller and many on Twitter to question the location of the drop,
thinking that the ball must have crossed the margin several yards further back.
The PGA Tour released a statement
quickly thereafter citing Decision 26-1/17 regarding the drop. Tiger had used his best judgment to determine
the point where the ball last crossed, including consulting with his
fellow-competitor. The Decision states
that if a player uses his best judgment and afterward it is determined that the
point is actually incorrect, the player does not incur a penalty for playing
from a wrong place, otherwise a player would always be subject to that penalty
when they use their best judgment and are afterward found to be incorrect (see
entire text of Decision below).
There are several important things
to say about this Decision and proceeding under 26-1 in general. Remember that ANY time you are proceeding
under 26-1 and determining the point where the ball last crossed the margin of
the hazard, unless an official or marshal was close enough to see the exact
crossing point, you are always estimating the spot. When proceeding under this Rule (specifically
26-1c for lateral water hazards), it is not an exact science. Tiger did everything correctly. He had a general idea of where it
crossed. He consulted with his
fellow-competitor and his fellow-competitor’s caddie to see if there was
agreement about the point and there was.
He dropped using his best judgment with all available knowledge. The drop was correct, and even if the blimp
showed he gained a few extra yards, Decision 26-1/17 tells us that he proceeded
correctly.
This situation is NOTHING like the
original “Dropgate.” Tiger was not in
breach of a Rule and did not drop in a wrong place. Even if it is argued that he did drop a few
yards closer than the actual spot where it last crossed, he proceeded
correctly. He estimated the spot where
it last crossed and dropped accordingly.
End of story.
Under Decision 26-1/17, a player
could even use his best judgment and drop in a place that could be considered a
serious breach of playing from a wrong place.
The key to remember is whether the player has used all available
information and used honest judgment as to where the ball has crossed the
margin of the hazard. If that is the
case, then the ball is in play and the player has proceeded correctly. (To
cover all the bases, if you drop and before the ball is played it is discovered
that the point used was incorrect, you must correct the error under 20-6, but
if the ball has been played there is no need to correct the mistake).
Let’s use some common sense
here. If a player uses all the available
information (and no, don’t tell me the blimp view is available knowledge to
Tiger, if you do you’re an idiot) and determines a point that later turns out
to be incorrect should he really be penalized?
Of course not. How else should a
player proceed? What happens when you
can’t see the point where it last crossed but you have knowledge that the ball
is in the hazard? Do you have to get it
exactly right or suffer a two-stroke penalty?
Of course not.
So let’s bite this “Dropgate II” in
the bud right now before misinformation takes over. Tiger did it right. If it turns out the ball crossed a few yards
further back, it’s not a penalty because he used all available information to
determine the point and used his best judgment.
There was no ill-intent and there was no attempt to gain an advantage
and he dropped correctly according to the Rule.
So Johnny, when it comes to the Rules, just keep quiet.
Decision 26-1/17
Q. In the circumstances described
in Decision 26-1/16 [a player has dropped
under 26-1c and it is then discovered that the point was not correct], what
is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in a wrong place, plays it before his
error is discovered?
A. A must continue play with the
ball played from a wrong place, without penalty. Applying the penalty under Rule 26-1 for
playing from a wrong palce (see Rule 20-7) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring
a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball
last crosses a water-hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves
incorrect.
No comments:
Post a Comment