It has nothing to do with McBeth. It's about the fact that the log was obviously intentionally placed where it was so it should've been considered course equipment. However, as it was stated by another previously, it should've been staked or marked. In a money game I understand the logic, but I dont agree with the action. Anyone in my group (casually) would get a good razz from me had they made the same move.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Moving a log
- Thread starter robdeforge
- Start date
It has nothing to do with McBeth. It's about the fact that the log was obviously intentionally placed where it was so it should've been considered course equipment. However, as it was stated by another previously, it should've been staked or marked. In a money game I understand the logic, but I dont agree with the action. Anyone in my group (casually) would get a good razz from me had they made the same move.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
Can you quote that in the current rules?
Mack eby
Newbie
It actually says it a little different.
Attachments
Because this bounced back up, I checked 803 and it's clear that it shouldn't have been moved (IMO). It's part of the course, or was placed intentionally.
OTOH, it's not some massive log it took a hulk to move. Kind of a tweener and i would not have balked at someone moving it as Paul did.
OTOH, it's not some massive log it took a hulk to move. Kind of a tweener and i would not have balked at someone moving it as Paul did.
I don't think size (dimensions, density, form, mass, etc) should matter. My immediate thoughts were: it's wrong & no-one will call it. Heck, someone could have said, "Whoa, that's part of the course." Replace it & throw. Where was the TD, Marshall, etc? Everybody was there, no?
What response would you like?
Not sure what you're asking. I presented what I thought was a reasonable, non-confrontational, & non-punitive response.
Consider if a previous player moved that log. Paul's putter would have kept going, maybe OB. This could be a good teaching/analysis opportunity for TDs, Rules Committee, players, marshalls, & DGCR fans.
Consider if a previous player moved that log. Paul's putter would have kept going, maybe OB. This could be a good teaching/analysis opportunity for TDs, Rules Committee, players, marshalls, & DGCR fans.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 22,056
Part of the course, that is not "loose debris".
It certainly seems like it's part of the course.
But this just speaks to the broader issue of overall standards for venue preparation. It's one thing for this to be unclear for your local am tournament, it's something else entirely for Worlds. If there are logs, which are intended to be part of the course, something that is hardly the norm for a DG course, TDs should call that out explicitly in the caddy book. Much like ambiguous hazard or OB lines, that is something that is easily foreseeable as a potential problem. Make it explicit so that if someone is going to get assessed a penalty there, it won't be because of a potentially ambiguous or, worse, unequal ruling. Don't let the chase card get an advantage on the lead card by changing the course, as was done here.
There isn't any reason this needed to be ambiguous, at all.
But this just speaks to the broader issue of overall standards for venue preparation. It's one thing for this to be unclear for your local am tournament, it's something else entirely for Worlds. If there are logs, which are intended to be part of the course, something that is hardly the norm for a DG course, TDs should call that out explicitly in the caddy book. Much like ambiguous hazard or OB lines, that is something that is easily foreseeable as a potential problem. Make it explicit so that if someone is going to get assessed a penalty there, it won't be because of a potentially ambiguous or, worse, unequal ruling. Don't let the chase card get an advantage on the lead card by changing the course, as was done here.
There isn't any reason this needed to be ambiguous, at all.
I have long been an advocate for a TD guidelines manual. Nothing binding, but provide all TDs with the things it takes to run a good tournament. Include a checklist of everything -- because even among the best TD's they can likely have MOST of those things on their list, not all. But provide an avenue for everyone to consider, then they'll all get there.
robdeforge
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,357
the logs being included in the caddy book (I mean as depicted in the map of the hole in the caddybook) to me mean that, at the very least, he should've moved it back. or some event staff should've. or maybe the fact they didn't move it back for the final round means it's all good
The Finals video shows "The Log" that stopped PMs putt from sliding toward OB was not replaced. This suggests that logs are not considered part of the course and removing them from the stance area is within the rules.
desmondeby
*Necromancer*
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2021
- Messages
- 62
Correct. If that log was supposed to be part of the course, the TD could have had it fastened but since he didn't Paul McBeth had a right to move it.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
Nah- that suggests either no one on staff knew it was moved or that no one on staff had time/inclination to move it back. The fact that they were depicted in the caddie book is the real tell. I started off on this one thinking he had every right to move it but have come around to thinking he did not based on the caddie book. (whether or not it was fastened in place is irrelevant)
robdeforge
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,357
or it suggests that the people running the event didn't do a full course walk through between when this happened in the 4th and the 5th (final) round, and so they didn't even know the log had been moved
edit: biscoe beat me to it by about 5 hours, whoops
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
When you consider that even old schoolers have been coached that "dead and unattached" can be moved, "live and attached" cannot be moved, you can understand why moving the log would seem okay (dead and unattached) and moving it would not be okay IF it were attached or secured in some way, not just in a potentially ambiguous location.
If you look at most the logs that are a part of this course, they are massive and nobody is going to move them. The ones on either side of the log Paul moved was not that large.
Should that matter? There were two large logs on either side with a gap—which is how the caddy book depicts it.
So I don't know for certain it was actually part of the course or not. It looks like it was, but there is a little wiggle room in the debate.
So true about the "dead/unattached" narrative. I think its an oversimplification of the rule and not consistent with the original intent. However, I believe there is nothing ambiguous about "The Log". It was found, cut, moved, & purposefully placed within the circle of Hole 5. If we accept moving it as within the rules then every log (or any other integral obstacle) becomes "Casual" (803.01 B 1) unless it is anchored, branded, painted, or specifically described in a rule sheet/caddy book. This interpretation allows a player to move any of these obstacles if they lie within the stance area.
Similar threads
