The rules are the rules, I get that. And Brian's integrity was second to none. But the punishment here far outweighed the crime. It's not like Brian ploughed the club through the reeds and knocked 40 or 50 of them away with his backwswing. MAYBE a one stroke penalty would at least be more palatable. Two was grossly unfair for feathering a reed that wasn't even removed. It's like the (now changed) rule about a penalty for the ball oscillating when you've taken your stance. Very, VERY petty.
I also believe a player has the right to know if an object is actually a loose impediment before he plays his shot !!! There are situations (possibly here) that require a player to touch the object (i.e. pull on it) to see if it "fixed" or loose.
Davis should have the right to confirm the nature of the object before shooting by (in this case) touching (pulling on it) much like a golfer has the right to move his ball in order to identify it before shooting and avoid a penalty for a wrong ball.
It is not a loose impediment if it is "fixed or growing". The rules don't define what "fixed" is but, as most of the reed was suspended in mid-air, I would definitely call that fixed...hence not a loose impediment and not a penalty.
@wasabi66 I don't believe Davis even attempted the so called par putt... Even if he did and missed, it would have at least put SOME pressure on Furyk's par putt to secure the win as he could've made bogey
@wasabi66 without the penalty they would have both been on the green for the same score - although Davis was much further away he could have still sunk the putt to tie
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davis missed his would be par put anyways, Furyk parred the overtime hole, game over. The fact Davis called a penalty on himself is moot.
The rules are the rules, I get that. And Brian's integrity was second to none. But the punishment here far outweighed the crime. It's not like Brian ploughed the club through the reeds and knocked 40 or 50 of them away with his backwswing. MAYBE a one stroke penalty would at least be more palatable. Two was grossly unfair for feathering a reed that wasn't even removed. It's like the (now changed) rule about a penalty for the ball oscillating when you've taken your stance. Very, VERY petty.
azapro911 3 months ago
I also believe a player has the right to know if an object is actually a loose impediment before he plays his shot !!! There are situations (possibly here) that require a player to touch the object (i.e. pull on it) to see if it "fixed" or loose.
Davis should have the right to confirm the nature of the object before shooting by (in this case) touching (pulling on it) much like a golfer has the right to move his ball in order to identify it before shooting and avoid a penalty for a wrong ball.
worldbiosphere 1 year ago
It is not a loose impediment if it is "fixed or growing". The rules don't define what "fixed" is but, as most of the reed was suspended in mid-air, I would definitely call that fixed...hence not a loose impediment and not a penalty.
worldbiosphere 1 year ago
sometimes its not all about winning
WestBromSte 1 year ago
@wasabi66 I don't believe Davis even attempted the so called par putt... Even if he did and missed, it would have at least put SOME pressure on Furyk's par putt to secure the win as he could've made bogey
NZSportPicks 1 year ago
@wasabi66 without the penalty they would have both been on the green for the same score - although Davis was much further away he could have still sunk the putt to tie
bunnydrumming 1 year ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davis missed his would be par put anyways, Furyk parred the overtime hole, game over. The fact Davis called a penalty on himself is moot.
wasabi66 1 year ago
He was extremely unlikely to win from there, but fair do's nonetheless.
numbersixvalverde 1 year ago
i went n saw it it was alot of fun :)
Sleytownmafia 1 year ago
Check out my video for weekly European and PGA tour tip and picks, last week Bo Van Pelt was one of our selections and finished T3rd
NZSportPicks 1 year ago