Re: Wie disaualification - bottom line imo



Colin Wilson <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Eqj5f.21975$U51.5348@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> David Harris wrote:
>
>> It was difficult enough that a young player, although with a LOT of
>> tournament experience, and at the highest level, got it wrong. As
>> did her caddy, who has a LOT more experience than she. Her fellow
>> competitors didn't notice anything wrong either.
>>
>> How do you see that it doesn't come down to microscopic distances?
>> Are you saying that if it was only 1mm closer to the hole, it was
>> okay? 1/2mm? 1/10000mm? If it is that close, you can either decide
>> it's okay without measuring, no good - again without measuring, or
>> get out your micrometer and your high-tensile measuring string.
>>
>> Of course you need to be sure of the exact position of the ball, so
>> you'll need something much more precise than a clumsy, irregular tee.
>> And you'll need to be quite careful in making sure to measure from
>> the inside margin of the highest dimple on the ball to the outside
>> margin of the lowest point of the marking tee. And don't even start
>> on how to properly flip a club to ensure 2 club lengths (as measured
>> from where to where on the club?). By the way, you'd better be quite
>> careful in measuring the angle of those clubs relative to the hole,
>> to ensure an angle of at least 90* - which I think was Wei's
>> fundamental mistake: Didn't she flip the club so that her second
>> club-length described an area that was closer to the hole?
>
>> My point is that it isn't as simple as you describe - and if one is
>> to be consistent and fair, than indeed it does come down to
>> microscopic distances. Up until this point, it's been a matter of
>> eye-balling all the distances and angles, and as long as no
>> significant advantage is gained, the rules are ratherly liberally
>> interpreted - a gain of an inch or so (with no advantage in lie or
>> line) from a long ways out is irrelevant, and consistent with the
>> spirit of the rules.
>
> You are going to extraordinary lengths to complicate it.
>
> It *is* simple. You have an area of approximately 4 square metres to
> drop within. You also have an easily estimated line over which your
> ball cannot roll.
>
> If you are trying to "fudge it" onto a small area of grass as opposed
> to dirt, and it doesn't work out, then you must accept the
> consequences. "Not nearer the hole" means exactly that. You can't
> creep a few inches or a foot forward to give yourself an advantage.
>
> The consequences of a "less than ideal" drop are always present. You
> are not entitled to a perfect position with a perfect lie. You drop
> the ball and after that it's in the lap of the golf gods. The "spirit
> of the game" is a two-way street, and it isn't necessarily always in
> your favour.
>
> If it doesn't look like working out, there are two other options under
> Rule 28.
>

You've missed my point.

First, I'm not arguing for cheating, which would be the case if she
knowingly dropped the ball closer to the hole to get a better lie. As I
said before, I don't know if she attempted to do that or not. My view
from the video looked as though she had a lot of "legal" grassy area to
drop in. I read one official's view that any drop that ended up on grass
would be improper.

I'm saying that strict interpretations of the rules require strict and
accurate measurements. Consider this: Wie marks her 2 club lengths
correctly, and makes a proper drop 6" back of the line marking an equal
distance from the hole. The ball hits the ground and rolls forward 6".
What should she do, according to the rules? Pick it up and re-drop, or
hit it as it lies. I think the answer depends on the distances - did she
drop 6.01" back? Did it really roll 6.02" forward. It completely
changes her options. In real life, most people look at it and say "I
think it's still okay", or "It looks like it went too far forward" and
proceed with play accordingly. They make their "best guess" decision.
I'll reiterate that a change in lie or obstruction changes things as they
have a material effect on the next shot.

We haven't even discussed the height of the drop (shoulder height? - do
my shoulders have to be parellel? what if the side I'm dropping from is
dipped by an inch, or a half, or a millimeter? - is that an improper drop
and thus (on video review) grounds for DQ after the card is signed?).

I'm not arguing with taking the consequences of a bad drop. I've taken
my share of unplayables, and they have sometimes ended up in lousy places
(usually in the deep grass, where I couldn't go back away from the pin to
any good place, and it wasn't important enough to delay the groups behind
by going back to the previous shot's location). I can deal with that.

My point is that if you want the rules to be precisely adhered to all the
time, it's gotta get messy, and I don't think it makes the game any
better. I'd hate to see an increase in this sort of thing (again, with
the caveat about real cheating).

dh
.