Powered by TypePad

« Life After Kobe | Main | Gun Control. Or The Opposite »

April 14, 2013

Comments

Jack is Back (Again)!

Is TM saying that those of us who are of the DQ side of the kerfuffle voted for Gore?

boatbuilder

One of the things that really bugs me about Tiger is that he can say with perfect candor that he moved the ball back so that he wouldn't hit the flagstick again and nobody's response is "Oh, right, 'cause two wedge shots in a row hitting in exactly the same spot happens all the time." Because in his case it is a very real possibility. In my own case the odds of hitting the green a second time are not particularly good.

hit and run

I thought we were to chalk anyone thinking he should be DQ'd and/or self DQ to Tiger hate?

Thomas Collins

Is there any concept in the rules of golf that a golfer's scorecard signing responsibilities includes knowledge of those rules? If so, shouldn't Woods have been disqualified notwithstanding that he wasn't informed, before he signed his scorecard, that his drop was illegal?

Thomas Collins

There was no controversy in the NCAA men's hockey final last night (which could also have been called the Route 95 in Connecticut championship). Congrats to Yale, which bested Quinnipiac 4-0. See LUN.

Jack is Back (Again)!

TC,

Exactly, my point why he should be DQ. He knowingly violated rule 20.7 (see Note 1) which is a serioius breach. Since this was willful (admitted later by Tiger) and was not scored as such on his scorecard he should be DQ'd.

But again, the scorecard is not why he was assessed a 2 shot penalty or why he should have been DQ'd.

BTW, boatbuilder, these touring pros can hit successive wedges to within inches of each other. Ben Hogan back in his day could hit 2 irons to within 1 yard of each other on the range.

Another point is this. Tiger could have easily decided to take a 2 shot penalty from the 2 yard advantage drop rather than risk hitting another wedge from the same spot and either hitting the stick again or leaving it on the green for a 2 putt or more. If he had hit the stick again then he is back where he started from hitting seven. Taking the 2 strokes and putting it down on the card he is in the hole for a 7 versus a 8 or 9. Another reason he cheated knowingly.

Missing in all of this is the effect this decision has on ethics in sport and the influence money (TV revenue) has on the game or games.

/Will not accept replies to this from H&R:)

AliceH

--Missing in all of this is the effect this decision has on-- my interest in golf in general and JOM threads in particular. NTTAWWT. Carry on.

Walter

I liked Tiger because he was, well, better than everyone else.

This is not better than everyone else.

His personal foibles seemed far removed from his behavior on the course. Now I wonder if he sees golf rules with the same (artificially-enhanced) vision that he uses for personal morality.

Jack is Back (Again)!

Talking about college and higher education, you have this stituation where the BBC took advantage of the London School of Economics to disguise an investigative documentary about North Korea. Link.

Regardless of who knew what when, the university demonstrates a ton of naivete about journalists and their motives.

Porchlight

I don't see how anyone can know definitively that Tiger knew the rule and deliberately cheated, as opposed to making a mistake.

narciso

Well this was the same University, that turned a blind eye to Seif Quadaffi's plagiarized thesis, no.

PaulV

JiB Ben Hogan could hit his 1 iron too. Story of his club that was stolen at 1950 US Open follows: LUN too

http://articles.philly.com/2013-02-19/sports/37162303_1_ben-hogan-curt-sampson-hy-peskin

The club had a mark in the middle as Hogan always hit the ball where it needed to be hit.

Janet - aficionado of gaspers, Bible thumpin', Israel loving, bitter clingin', cro magnon,

Seems like one of the most basic requirements of being a professional athlete is knowing the rules of the game!...even if they are hard & complicated.

Up at Instapundit - "Meanwhile, nobody believes that a YouTube video was behind Benghazi, but filmmaker Nakoula is still in jail."

Did all the "news" stories ever print corrections on the crappy video lie?

sailor

Well, I am not a Tiger hater, but I don't understand why he did not know the rules of the game?

Thomas Collins

Porchlight, even if Woods didn't understand the rule, if ignorance of the rules is no excuse, Woods should have been disqualified. I'm not as familiar with golf law as Stephanie ot JiB or others at JOM, so I am trying to learn more. My initial reaction was it didn't matter whether Woods knew he was breaking the rules or was ignorant of the rules. He knowingly took a drop to improve his position, and doing that violated a rule. The more I read about this, the more I think the golf honchos blew it by exercising their discretion to let him continue in the Masters.

Porchlight

1. It appears the rules are complicated since only the one viewer noticed. So it is possible that lots and lots of golf professionals including the officials have no better handle on the rules than Tiger.

2. Some people are saying that he definitely cheated. Why is that? How do you know? Are we mind readers now?

If he broke the rules then punish him. But I want to know why people think he deliberately cheated, that he simply HAD to know what he was doing and that it was a violation.

Must run, will check in later..

jimmyk

I don't see how anyone can know definitively that Tiger knew the rule and deliberately cheated, as opposed to making a mistake.

Agreed--I admit I'm no expert on golf, but it's pretty dicey for any sport to rules that depend on reading the mind of the participant. The only exceptions I can think of are where a potential injury is involved, like a flagrant foul in basketball.

You also can't have punishments that allow for ignorance of the rules. So whatever is done, the presumption should be that a player knows the rules, and it shouldn't matter whether it was intentional or a mistake.

Cecil Turner

He knowingly took a drop to improve his position, and doing that violated a rule.

True, but . . . he'd already been adjudicated as "close enough" when he opened his mouth at the presser; and only then demonstrated that he'd applied the wrong rule, and only because he explained his reasoning. Moreover, two of the other sections under rule 26 allow dropping the ball "within two club lengths and no closer to the hole," and moving the ball back two yards is generally not considered an advantage. It's obvious (at least to me) that the violation was unintentional, conflating the other sections of the rule, and that it conferred little if any advantage.

That said, if I read the discussion around rule 33-7 correctly, it says it applies only when the player "could not reasonably have known" . . . which is obviously not on. In fact he should've known. In any event, Tiger would've been better off if he'd DQd himself (perpetuating the patently ridiculous legend that golfers are scrupulously honest)--it'd have paid off in the long run in endorsements if nothing else.

Thomas Collins

See LUN for an article which, at the end, sets forth the statements of many of the top golf pros on Dropgate. The differing views of the pros reflect the differing views expressed at JOM.

hit and run

Cecil:
and moving the ball back two yards is generally not considered an advantage.

I don't think so. Moving the ball back, whether two yards or twenty, when a pro has a wedge in his hand can and should be considered taking advantage very generally and very liberally.

Watch the pros when they are taking a drop in a drop area. They most certainly do not always drop the ball at the very front of the area because closer is better, and very often they deliberately choose a spot a few yards in one direction or another based upon what would give them the greatest potential advantage.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

Is it really plausible that a guy who just shot a commercial that claims winning fixes everything is going to disqualify himself from anything, ever?

Is it really plausible that a guy who calls up some doctor from Canada to treat his slowly recovering knee, a doctor whose main claim to fame is supplying PEDs to star athletes, would do anything a little extra to win?

There has been so little evidence of cheating by other major star athletes in other sports and Tiger's behavior, psyche and previous actions are of such a high standard that I don't understand why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
I was going to say it's too bad there's only one Brooklyn Bridge to sell, but one is all you really need when you stop and think about it.

Jane - Mock the Media!

The violation was called in by Lindsay Vonn's ex-husband in case you didn't know.

narciso

Hey, Jane, how have you been?

Thomas Collins

Jane! I knew this Woods kerfuffle would cause you to delurk!

See LUN for an article on Vonn's ex's tweet. At least he has a sense of humor about the kerfuffle!

jimmyk

Hi, Jane, we missed you. I presume you know that was a joke.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-lindsey-vonn-ex-husband/2081017/

It is very odd that a sport's decisions can be triggered by TV viewers calling in.

Captain Hate

O/T Shocking that on FNS Rove praised the gang of 8 for their work on comprehensive immigration reform. The panel was made up of Scottie Centerfold, Fat Boy, some female donk operative and Evan Bayh. Thanks for giving conservatives a voice, Ailes. Idiot.

hit and run

We Are All PGA Tour Officials!

Jane - Mock the Media!

Capn' did you catch that dem chick swooning over Brown? It was ridiculous.

MarkO

"It is very odd that a sport's decisions can be triggered by TV viewers calling in."

He missed the tag. He missed the tag.

Captain Hate

Yeah I threw up in my mouth a little at that, Jane. I'm afraid that some of our tea party candidates have shown that once they're in power they're as easily seduced as the rest of the squishes. I think they call it "growing in office"; kind of like a tumor.

Glad to see your posts again.

Jack is Back (Again)!

Test. Just lost another long post answering Porchlight. Anyone else having problems posting?

Jack is Back (Again)!

jimmyk,

TV viewers calling in rules violations is nothing new. Every year they finger someone. Why? Because unlike baseball, basketball, football and even tennis there are no walking officials with each group of players. Only in the US Open or The Open Championship do you get that. You have 70 to 150 players spread out over 200 acres and maybe 2 or 3 PGA rules officials in golf carts. That's why and its allowed by golf.

Captain Hate

Mel can't post as of yesterday.

henry

JiB, problems appear to be sporadic and widespread. A most annoying combination for us and those who need to fix it.

Jack is Back (Again)!

Porchlight,

I will try to answer your question about how we know Tiger knew the rule. Because of his actions after the ball was lost in the hazard. He looked at all four options he had and chose not to use the first three as shown on the replay. He looked at playig it from the hazard and said no way. He looked at the drop zone marked in front of the hazard and said he didn't the grass growing against him. Then he walked back from the line where the ball entered the hazard and didn't like the low branches overhanging for his shot. He then chose to proceed under rule 27.1 stroke and distance and dropping nearly to the original spot from which the errant stroke was played. He knew and gave himself and advantage of 2 yards. To me, you and 99.9% of the golfing public that is not an advantage but to a guy who has 14 majors, and what 86 victories in the game, its one hell of an advantage. That's how I know.

Threadkiller

Theses golferer threads drive me nuts.

Improving a lie should be left to the lawyers.

Threadkiller

These...

Jack is Back (Again)!

TK,

Interestingly the guys who called the penalty on Tiger and then gave him the 33.7 pass are all lawyers:)

Ralph L

Tiger would've been better off if he'd DQd himself
Much like Obama should have turned down the Nobel Prize. See also Al Gore. But it ain't in their nature.

Danube of Thought on iPad

"I thought we were to chalk anyone thinking he should be DQ'd and/or self DQ to Tiger hate?"

Sounds about right.

Captain Hate

JiB liked Eldrick the golfer until yesterday.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--"I thought we were to chalk anyone thinking he should be DQ'd and/or self DQ to Tiger hate?"

Sounds about right.

Posted by: Danube of Thought on iPad | April 14, 2013 at 12:26 PM --

I kinda like Mickelson, maybe cause he's a lefty.
If he had done what Tiger did I think he should have been DQed or DQed himself.
Same with McElroy, Garcia or anybody else out there.

Perhaps there is more to it than Tiger hate?

Thomas Collins

I am indifferent about Woods. I try not to hate, love or feel any emotion about people I don't know. I enjoy watching fine athletic performances. Because athletes and entertainers have public relations specialists expert in crafting narratives that may or may not bear any relationship to the "real" person, I try to ignore such nonsense. For example, I have no idea whether Woods now exercises the same level of "putter control" in his personal life as he does when he golfs.

To me, the sole issue is whether the golf honchos appropriately exercised their discretion to allow Woods to continue competing in the 2013 Masters. I think the answer is no. Some of my friends here agree, and some disagree. There is no more basis to the proposition that pro-DQers are Tigers haters than there is to the proposition that anti-DQers are Tiger suckups.

boatbuilder

I am no big fan of Tiger and I am agnostic on whether he should have been DQ'd or DQ'd himself under the harsh rules of golf. But to those who think that he knew he was "cheating" and intentionally did so, do you also assume that he didn't know that his every move was being intently watched by many, many millions on HDTV, a substantial portion of whom: a)are cranky nitpicking golf lawyers who are sticklers for the rules; b)really, really would like for him to be DQ'd and/or embarrassed; c)are his ex-wife or his girlfriend's ex-husband; or d) all of the above? I personally think his caddy screwed this one up.

pagar

TK, the good stuff is over on the" Life after Kobe" thread. See the link from the" Hawaiian official swears".

narciso

This is why I was reading a novel about Paris in the 20s, based on a memoir by a Tribune reporter;

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/293765-cornyn-encouraged-by-immigration-talks

Danube of Thought

Got this from the USGA general counsel late yesterday:

I have been on the course and just got back. I heard the following. The drop was reviewed on video before his round ended and the Committee (the Masters Committee, no affiliation with the USGA although they are applying USGA rules) decided the drop was legal. After play ended and based on additional evidence, the Committee reversed its decision, but because it had not intervened at the time or given Woods the opportunity to post a correct score, Rule 33-7 allows the Committee to reverse the DQ penalty due to unusual circumstances. That is what I heard. We are having a USGA only dinner tonight. 15 people there are rules qualified and several are world class experts who sit on the Joint Rules Committee with the R&A. I will report back.

I guess that's pretty much what we all knew. When I hear what the guys at the dinner said I'll update.

Danube of Thought

I will try to answer your question about how we know Tiger knew the rule.

Tell us how it was that the Masters Committee didn't.

Ralph L

appropriately exercised their discretion
I don't see how they could DQ for signing a scorecard THEY had said was correct, intentional rule-breaking or not. I'm still annoyed at the NC dept of revenue for charging me $15 interest on a tax refund mistake THEY made. When the rules are so complex or ambiguous that the rulemakers can't get it right the first time....

Porchlight

There has been so little evidence of cheating by other major star athletes in other sports and Tiger's behavior, psyche and previous actions are of such a high standard that I don't understand why he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

Does Tiger have a history of cheating or attempting to cheat at golf? If not, why assume that's the case here?

The behavior of other athletes in other sports and Tiger's behavior off the course are irrelevant to this situation IMHO.

Jack is Back (Again)!

CH,

Not so much a fan as someone who appreciated his skill and talent which is still deserving of world number one. I am a rules purist and golf is a self-regulating sport so it bothers me when a great golfer like Tiger takes advantage not of the rule but in violaiton of the rule. The problem is not with the Master's Committee which did everything within their discretion but with Tiger seeming to believe he above the game which he isn't.

To me the honorable thing would be to Withdraw from the tournament. This is going to come back big time on Tiger because he will have lost a lot of true fans but then most of the Tiger groupies no nothing of golf - we'll see.

Porchlight

JiB,

He knew and gave himself and advantage of 2 yards.

Okay. But how can we be certain that he knew that doing so was a violation? The officials didn't think it was a violation until someone else put a bug in their ear.

It sounds like there are ways to play to your advantage that do not involve violations. Perhaps that is what he believed he was doing.

narciso

The novel is Paris Deadline, by Max Byrd, the memoir along with Shirer's is by Waverly Root,

Jack is Back (Again)!

DoT,

I don't believe the Master's Committee even considered if he knew the rule. Tell me where my analysis is faulty as to whether he knew the rule. He certrainly took every action called for by Rule 26 including the option under 27.1. That doesn't show me someone ignorant of the rules. It shows me someone who knows the rule inside out.

I have done 6 USGA Open and 2 USGA Amatuer qualifyers and not met a professional yet who doesn't know the rules, especially rule 26 since it is exercised so often in all tournaments.

So, you know Ernie Getto?

Jack is Back (Again)!

I forgot to add that IMHO the reason the Master's Committee gave him a pass with rule 33.7 was because the had initially blew the call so to speak. They looked at the video and determined he had dropped properly under rule 27.1 but after the TV caller dialed in and they relooked they made a different decions after he had turned in his score card. By the way, Tiger's presser is what prompted the call not someone who saw the initial drop and thought it was off by 2 yards.

If Tiger had not said what he said there would have been nothing in form of any action by the Committee.

Rick Ballard

"Because athletes and entertainers have public relations specialists expert in crafting narratives that may or may not bear any relationship to the "real" person, I try to ignore such nonsense."

TC,

Platonic idealization creeps in everywhere. I wonder if the world record for a seal balancing a basketball on its nose will ever be broken? If it is, and the seal is found to have been trained on sardines rather than accepted standard of mackerel, should an asterisk be placed next to the achievement?

Thomas Collins

The issue is not cheating. The issues are, it apeears to me from the discussion and quotations from the rule book over the past couple of days, duty to report, what constitutes reasonable knowledge in the context of the rules, and the exercise of officials' discretion not to DQ.

Ralph L, it seems to me that if there is a duty to report, the fact that a golf official concluded it was not a violation from viewing a screen shouldn't govern. From Woods' statement, he clearly knew what he was doing, although he may in good faith have forgotten the rule (I take no position on that sub-kerfuffle, because I don't think it governs the result here).

Noone would have expected Tom Brady, on that snowy day in Foxboro over a decade ago, to tell the refs that he wasn't tucking and was actually starting to throw another pass, even if Brady was certain that was what he was doing. Apparently, golf imposes a higher standard on its competitors than football and most other major sports (I don't report whether there is a duty to report in tennis).

inquiring minds

JiB,

A masterful explanation on how you know what Tiger knew. Please apply your mind in a similar fashion to answer the question of why Tiger rubbed the golfing world's nose in his cheating. It can't be as simple as he didn't think he did anything wrong.

Stephanie

they deliberately choose a spot a few yards in one direction or another based upon what would give them the greatest potential advantage.

and

It sounds like there are ways to play to your advantage that do not involve violations.

My point from yesterday... being able to take advantage is an integral part of the sport. If you have two or more choices you ARE gonna choose the one that gives the best advantage.

Wonder what would the outcome have been if Stevie was still on his bag instead of his current caddie???

Thomas Collins

Make that don't recall whether there is a duty in tennis.

Rick, in connection with your 1:17 PM post, there is even a kerfuffle about what a car being in production means for purposes of the fastest car in production record. I'm going to try to find the link.

Skoot

Has iBama ruled yet?

Stephanie

And don't forget that the entire back half of the players on the course had been warned about slow play multiple times and that a player (Tuan) had been assessed a penalty... haste in making a decision, even knowing the rules, can lead to errors.

Both sides fouled. The penalty that should have been assessed was. Case closed.

On the Tuan penalty... Crenshaw said yesterday that he had talked with him between holes about speeding up in addition to the warnings, but that he didn't and he understood why Tuan was singled out.

Thomas Collins

Rick, see LUN for a short discussion on what disqualifies a car from being a production car. I don't know whether society suffers from an excess in Platonic idealization or from an excess in Plato's Eleatic Stranger's emphasis on the importance of classification,
but there certainly are a lot of categories for us to argue about these days.

Thomas Collins

Rick, see LUN for a short discussion on what disqualifies a car from being a production car. I don't know whether society suffers from an excess in Platonic idealization or from an excess in Plato's Eleatic Stranger's emphasis on the importance of classification,
but there certainly are a lot of categories for us to argue about these days.

Jack is Back (Again)!

inquiring minds,

I have no idea what Tiger knew but his actions in applying the rules indicates to me that he knew the rule. I am not reading his mind but only analyzing his actions with regard to his lost ball in a water hazard. Tell me where my analysis is faulty in regard to his application of the rules. And if you or anyone thinks 2 yards for a pitch shot doesn't give a player of Tiger's abillity an "advantage" then I challenge your knowledge of golf.

Danube of Thought

So, you know Ernie Getto?

For many years my partner and one of my best friends. Do you know him?

Danube of Thought

I don't believe the Master's Committee even considered if he knew the rule.

My question was directed at the Committee's having reviewed the drop and found no violation. I also understand (but am not certain) that there was an official standing a few feet away who remained silent.

Captain Hate

CH,

Not so much a fan as someone who appreciated his skill and talent which is still deserving of world number one.

That's what I was trying to say.

inquiring minds

JiB,

I am not challenging your knowledge of the rules. You are a valued commenter on this subject and many others. One of the many JOM resources that I so love to read.

You are using your unchallenged knowledge of the rules to explain what someone else was thinking to explain an action on their part.

All I am saying is that the admission against interest is most easily explained by his not thinking he did anything wrong.


daddy

When's Tee Time today for The Final Fore?

Threadkiller

“Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain, it's really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards further back and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back. I felt that that was going to be the right decision to take off four right there. And I did. It worked out perfectly.”


Here is my question: What rule did he have to be familiar with, to know he could go back to the "original" spot, that would jive with his lack of familiarity of a rule that defines "original"?


maryrose

I don't think Tiger will win but this kerfuffle is going to affect future tournaments.
i hope an immigration deal is done soon and that Rubio gets the credit. Of course Obama willtry and hog the spotlight but everyone knows how ineffective he is on everything. the economy especially. I like our chances in 2014. dems seem lost and confused with the erstwhile gun game and Bammycare nipping at their heels.

narciso

Honestly, she had to know this;


http://drewmusings.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/super-fact-checker-candy-crowley-is-an-idiot/

Captain Hate

Has iBama ruled yet?

Like everything else with the JEF we know nothing about his golf game other than he plays it a lot. Even Eldrick kept his yap shut about playing with him. At least with Slick I knew that he cheated so much and took so many mulligans that it infuriated the Golden Bear.

narciso

'so it was just this guy, from the neigborhood;


http://patterico.com/2013/04/14/arrest-in-murder-of-north-texas-prosecutors/comment-page-1/#comment-1205205

matt

The Master's Committee views on the Tiger Woods kerfuffle are evolving.

TC & Rick, speed limiting chips are standard in many places. I had a car that could, if I changed the chip, achieve it's full 175MPH capability as advertised by the manufacturer.

However, either state or federal law demanded the top speed be limited to 150MPH, so in went the limiting chip.

There are aftermarket chips available to allow the full aspiration/rpm ratios to achieve the advertised speed, but they voided the warranty for some reason.

Anyone wanting a car that does 220MPH that isn't done on a perfect track under perfect conditions is nuts anyway. I am convinced that one of these days one of the car shows is going to go too far.

We have had 4 or 5 fatal accidents by people driving too much car around here over the past few years, and I have been at stoplights laughing at inexperienced supercar drivers getting their gear ratios wrong.

Even at Indy, the average lap times have been reduced for safety reasons. Hitting a bank decelerating from 240MPH 2 times every lap for 500 miles when being driven by the best drivers in the world still results in some very nasty accidents on occasion.

daddy

I have a very long trip coming up allowing many hours of reading time, so I'm thinking of taking along a handful of the Master and Commander Series since I'm told I need to read that.

If anyone has any suggestions for a terrific Science or History book that they've read lately would you please mention it, as I'm doing my Library run tomorrow. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

Speaking of racing, Sam Posey had a short video essay on how the world has changed for the worse in the last 60 years before the start of today's Grand Prix.
There's a good sized controversy currently due to Sebastian Vettel ignoring orders from his team to stay behind his teammate Mark Webber in order to conserve tires and fuel. Webber did as was ordered and held back as well, which obedience Vettel used to pass him and win the race. Afterward he said he'd "robbed" his teammate but of course the W is still next to his name.

By way of contrast Posey recalled the time in the fifties when Peter Collins was leading a race and came in to the pits to find his teammate Fangio out. Even though Collins was in contention for the title he gave his car to Fangio to finish and win his fourth World Championship.
IMO he was champion of a different world than the one we now inhabit.

Porchlight

All I am saying is that the admission against interest is most easily explained by his not thinking he did anything wrong.

I agree. Why go into a detailed explanation of what he did if he understood it to be a violation? It makes no sense.

Captain Hate

so it was just this guy, from the neigborhood

No Law and Order episode to be ripped from that headline.

Threadkiller

JiB, are provisional balls allowed at the Masters?

If Tiger never went down to the "drop area", and elected to play a provisional ball, could he have moved back two yards prior to hitting the provisional ball?

Threadkiller

I agree. Why go into a detailed explanation of what he did if he understood it to be a violation? It makes no sense.

Because the committee already gave him a pass at that point. He did not expect them to reopen the query.

Ex Post Facto in golf? Who would have thought...

Threadkiller

I guess it really isn't Ex Post Facto, since the rules didn't change; they got applied.

Jack is Back (Again)!

TK,

Provisional balls are allowed in any game of golf but I don't understand your question. Are you saying that Tiger did not know for certain that his ball was lost in the water hazard? Except where it is allowed by a local rule, there is no provisional ball for a ball believed to be lost in a hazard.

Once it is determined that the ball is lost in a water hazard the player has the 4 options I wrote of above. Provisional balls are most commonly played if it is undetermined if the player hit is ball out of bounds.

BTW, we call the playing of a provisional ball from the tee for a ball lost in the water hazard as the Norman rule. Greg did this in some tournament not knowing that you can't do that. So by playing what he thought was a provisional ball became the ball in play -lying 3.

Threadkiller

I should have been a little more clear in my hypothetical, JiB. Yes, if the ball was undetermined to be lost or not, what are the limits to placement of the provisional ball?

Porchlight

daddy, so glad you are trying the O'Brian. Stick with it, it can be slow going at first but it will reward you beyond measure. You don't have to understand all the nautical jargon to get the feel of what's happening.

Have you read Young Men And Fire by Norman Maclean? It's 20 years old now but it's a masterpiece. It's about the Mann Gulch fire in Montana in 1949 and the men who fought it, but really it's about so much more than that. Easily one of my very favorite non-fiction works.

Porchlight

Young Men And Fire:

http://www.amazon.com/Young-Men-Fire-Norman-Maclean/dp/0226500624

You can scroll by the plot summary if you don't like spoilers, but the first review captures the book perfectly.

maryrose

Tiger does not possess the class to disqualify himself. Anyone considering that scenario is engaging in magical thinking.
Morrison, the illegal taper and eavesdropper is a felon with a court hearing on May 13th,2013. This is your standard dem operative. the other guy is on the verge of suing the dem operative who outed him to the press as one of the perpetrators. I think his name is OReilly. These guys, Conway included, are giving the Irish a bad reputation.

narciso

Yes it was the usual RINO panel, however;

http://www.runningstartonline.org/about-us/board-
of-directors

Jack is Back (Again)!

daddy,

I know you are ex-Navy but unless you trained on a square rigged saling ship you might get goo-goo eyed reading the technical detail of sailing, battle tactics and naval custom of the day.

I suggest a couple of other books to have handy when reading O'Brian:

Brian Lavery's "Jack Aubrey Commands: An Historical Companion to the Naval World of Patrick O'Brian". And,

Dean King's "A Sea of Words: A Lexicon and Companion to the Complete Seafaring Tales of Patrick O'Brian", plus for the home coffee table,

Richard O'Neill's "Patrick O'Brian's Navy: The Illustrated Companion to Jack Aubrey's World".

I have others but Dean King's is indispensible to anyone reading O'Brian.

/A glass of wine with you, sir:)

Marlene

Just caught up, we've been in NH all week-end visiting friends and family.We stopped at Kittery Trading Post for ammo.The parking lot was full of cars from Massachusetts and dozens of people were waiting for the doors to open. Ammo purchases were limited and within minutes the available inventory was sold.
Welcome back, Jane! I caught a bit of NH news and Scott Brown gave another speech in NH. Do you think he really will try to run in NH?

Porchlight

Agree with JiB on the Dean King lexicon - plus have a historical atlas with you if you can.

Dean King's atlas is great, but contains spoilers.

Danube of Thought on iPad

Daddy, I second JiB's suggestion. I kept a book at my elbow called something like "The Oxfoed Dictionary of Ships and the Sea." (can't find my copy now). One of the quirky charms of O'Brian is that he doesn't explain a damn thing--he assumes the reader knows as much as he does.

I also urge you to have a world atlas handy at all times.

Wade your way through the first 200 pages of the first one and you're off to the races. One of the rare and great reading experiences of a lifetime.

Jack is Back (Again)!

Porch,

How did you read the series? My ex-boss was a huge O'Brian fan. Even charted a ship in the med to visit all his port's of call exactly as described. But he could afford it. He told me to start at the very beginning with Master and Commander and then move on to the Post Captain, etc.

I know you can pick them up at any volume but to me reading them in order gives you a better overall perspective of the characters, places, situations and changes in the sea world of Aubrey.

Porchlight

jiB, I read them in order - I agree that's the only way to do it, though it took me three or four toe dips into Master and Commander to get through the 200 pages that DoT so ably describes. Once I jumped in, I was completely absorbed.

DoT says One of the rare and great reading experiences of a lifetime. Couldn't agree more.

daddy

Thanks for the suggestions folks and please keep them coming.

Porch, That 1st Review of the Firefighters sounds wonderful. Who would have thought it?

I love doing my Library runs. You never know what you're going to find as you cruise the stacks and browse the new arrivals sections.

BTW, just had a call from my excellent big brother the carpenter. He just had unexpected emergency surgery for a detached retina, but his sight has been saved (YaY) and now he says he's been ordered to sleep on his stomach for a month so as to keep the gas pumped into his eyeball properly inflated, and he's told to do almost nothing for at least a month, and very little reading.

Sounds like it'll just about kill him, but he's in good spirits nonetheless, and happy we have the technology nowadays that in prior decades would have left him blind.

Anyone here had such surgery so I can provide him with some positive feedback as a pick-me-up?

Jack is Back (Again)!

So tell me, is Tiger getting as much or more coverage than the leaders at the Masters? If you think equal or more than that is exactly what CBS and the sponsors were hoping for. Just saying.

Porchlight

daddy, glad his sight will be saved. Thank God for Western medicine. Can you get him some audio books to help him pass the time?

Jane - Mock the Media!

Do you think he really will try to run in NH?

Marlene

I missed that whole story until I went to hear the rep candidates speak last week and Dick told me. I have no idea. He didn't deny it this morning on Fox. I just think it's weird with a race he could have won in MA going on.


I actually considered driving up to the Kittery Outlets this weekend - not for ammo but for JJill.

Jack is Back (Again)!

Cannot post. Anyone else?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame