Charley Hoffman

[fixyurdivot]

I saw in our FTx IM's that Charley blew up his 3rd round but it wasn't until the post round interviews that I heard the likely reason for it.  

The incident happened at the 13th hole on Friday. Hoffman, whose primary sponsor is the title sponsor of this event, pushed his tee shot on the par 5 into a water hazard. He tried dropping his ball twice, but it rolled down a slope and crossed the hazard line twice. He then placed the ball, per the Rules of Golf, only to turn his back and have it roll down a hill back into the hazard. Hoffman thought he could replace the ball without a penalty. He was wrong, was penalized again, and blamed the USGA and the PGA Tour.

B. Chamblee stated that it was Charley's fault for not knowing or taking advantage of the rules and his option to move further back from the hazard and too an area where his ball would not be at risk for rolling back into the hazard.  I agree.  But I also think it's silly that a placed (and stationary) ball that suddenly rolls back into the hazard is a bit goofy and see his point. 

Lot's to be debated about how he went about his compliant but do you agree or disagree with Charley about the rule change?

[DiscipleofPenick]

I agree, once a ball is placed there should not be a further penalty if the ball moves without being touched by player. Change the rule.

[Shapotomous]

They changed a similar rule when on the putting green about the ball moving after it had been replaced after marking it.  See the replay of Billy Horschel at the Masters for the reason why the rule was changed.  Now if it hasn't been marked or dropped for relief then ya get what ya get if it starts moving again.

Edit to add....  It should be changed to say once the ball was dropped or placed after marking, it MUST be replaced back to where it was before it moved so that an advantageous movement of the ball isn't rewarded.

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

This same thing happened to Rickie not too long ago as well. It seems like a rule which should be changed as it is overkill and hard to say there would be a way for them to take advantage of the rule if it was changed?

[RollingGreens]

To be penalized for something that wasn’t results imposed seems like overkill. If the ball had settled in a spot long enough to be deemed “ok” to play I can’t see it being Any fault of Charlie’s. 

[Shapotomous]

4 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

This same thing happened to Rickie not too long ago as well. It seems like a rule which should be changed as it is overkill and hard to say there would be a way for them to take advantage of the rule if it was changed?

I think that was a the same tournament on hole 17 wasn't it?

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, Shapotomous said:

I think that was a the same tournament on hole 17 wasn't it?

My memory is good, but don't think it is that good. I just remember it seemed silly and he still ended up having a really solid round or even won the event?

[Shapotomous]

3 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

My memory is good, but don't think it is that good. I just remember it seemed silly and he still ended up having a really solid round or even won the event?

My memory has some holes in it too....I found it on youtube.  It was the WM but hole 11 after a chip.

 

[fixyurdivot]

I like Charley and hate to see him getting all the negative press.  Clearly he's frustrated with the issue and has been trying (to no avail) to get it addressed... but I think he got the draw attention part done .  I'm kind of hoping many of his colleagues come out in support of the rule change. 

[DaveP043]

29 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I like Charley and hate to see him getting all the negative press.

I don't dislike Charlie, but he deserves the bad press, his post was a serious over-reaction.  He slammed the USGA and R&A, the PGA Tour Rules Officials who set up the course, the PGA Tour in general.  Oh, he also betrays his lack of Rules knowledge when he says he though the Rule had been changed.   If anything deserves criticism, it might be the way the Penalty Area was marked, but moving the line has other implications.  Put the line at the top of the slope, and Charlie doesn't get Lateral Relief, because his ball didn't land in the General Area and bounce back into the PA.  Additionally, a ball that plugs on the bank doesn't get Relief, as its in the Penalty Area.  

And I haven't actually seen Charlie suggest that a Rule be changed, he merely complained about everyone involved, and talked about leaving for a different golf association (I assume that Greg Norman isn't planning to write his own Rules).  He whined about accountability and protection.  WTF does he mean by "Players need transparency, protection and consistency."   The Tour needs to protect him from his own poor choices?  What's not "transparent", could he not see the PA line?  Is the course marked in secret, in order to trap players?  What's inconsistent about the Rules?

Sorry, back to the Rule.  I would not recommend a change to this one.  A ball in play is a ball in play, I wouldn't want to see a special exception carved out for this specific situation.  I think that when you drop/place your ball on a steeply sloping area with closely mown grass, you must accept that there's some risk involved.  If you don't like that risk, you always have other options.  I don't have a problem with the more lenient Rules on a Putting Green, the green is a "special place" in the Rules, lots of things are acceptable on the green that get penalized elsewhere.  Having said that, the Tour could revisit their course preparation.  Is it necessary to have slopes like that mown so closely?  Could the Penalty Area line be drawn in a different place?

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, Shapotomous said:

My memory has some holes in it too....I found it on youtube.  It was the WM but hole 11 after a chip.

 

No doubt a large raindrop hit it just in the right spot as it had been sitting for quite awhile. That bank didn't even look very steep.  I wonder if he would have even had another spot, no closer, that was flatter?  Okay, the more examples I'm seeing, the more I'm agreeing with Charley... fix the goofy rule.

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

Okay, the more examples I'm seeing, the more I'm agreeing with Charley... fix the goofy rule.

I haven't seen anyone propose an actual Rule yet.  In which situations would a ball moved by "natural forces" be replaced, and when would it be played as it lies?  Only when placed, or when dropped as well?  Penalty Relief only, or free relief as well?  Where do you suggest the line be drawn?  Is there a potential for players to choose riskier locations to place the ball, knowing there's no complications if the ball moves later?  And please remember, vertical movement due to gravity still counts, a player could perch his ball on top of the grass, and if it settles a few seconds later he'd get to put it back on top of the grass.  

[Shapotomous]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I haven't seen anyone propose an actual Rule yet.  In which situations would a ball moved by "natural forces" be replaced, and when would it be played as it lies?  Only when placed, or when dropped as well?  Penalty Relief only, or free relief as well?  Where do you suggest the line be drawn?  Is there a potential for players to choose riskier locations to place the ball, knowing there's no complications if the ball moves later?  And please remember, vertical movement due to gravity still counts, a player could perch his ball on top of the grass, and if it settles a few seconds later he'd get to put it back on top of the grass.  

Charley should have dialed back the whining for sure but his behavior doesn't change my mind on adjusting the rule.  Seems  to me lots of rule changes get made without our input, but I guess if I have to I can start the process of rewriting the rule and do the job of the brainiacs at USGA and R&A. 

Here is a practical suggestion to start....make it like the putting green rule that if the re-dropped or re-placed ball moves laterally as a result of outside forces then you must put it back.  No advantage or disadvantage from the movement, no decision whether you want to or not,  it always goes back to where it was dropped or placed.

Why does vertical movement have to count?  That is an arbitrary decision you have made, the new rule does not have to be written that way.  In my proposed rule, movement would have to be lateral and not vertical.  

The initial rule proposal is ready for revisions....have at it everyone!

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

Why does vertical movement have to count?  That is an arbitrary decision you have made, the new rule does not have to be written that way.  In my proposed rule, movement would have to be lateral and not vertical.  

I mention vertical movement because it currently is specifically included in the definition of "moved", so that adding a rule that addresses only horizontal movement in a certain situation adds complication to the rule.

[Shapotomous]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I mention vertical movement because it currently is specifically included in the definition of "moved", so that adding a rule that addresses only horizontal movement in a certain situation adds complication to the rule.

Since it is a new rule we are proposing, much like the new putting green rule, it is not complicating anything.  I am specifically stating that movement must be lateral not vertical after a ball has been dropped or placed.  

[Shapotomous]

4 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

No doubt a large raindrop hit it just in the right spot as it had been sitting for quite awhile. That bank didn't even look very steep.  I wonder if he would have even had another spot, no closer, that was flatter?  Okay, the more examples I'm seeing, the more I'm agreeing with Charley... fix the goofy rule.

Ricky could have dropped where he hit from initially so he did not have to drop on that bank.  With all the time he took looking at the shot after he dropped he clearly didn't think the ball was in danger of moving.

[fixyurdivot]

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I haven't seen anyone propose an actual Rule yet.  In which situations would a ball moved by "natural forces" be replaced, and when would it be played as it lies?  Only when placed, or when dropped as well?  Penalty Relief only, or free relief as well?  Where do you suggest the line be drawn?  Is there a potential for players to choose riskier locations to place the ball, knowing there's no complications if the ball moves later?  And please remember, vertical movement due to gravity still counts, a player could perch his ball on top of the grass, and if it settles a few seconds later he'd get to put it back on top of the grass.  

Charley dosen't share your opinion .

[DaveP043]

Just now, fixyurdivot said:

Charley dosen't share your opinion .

You're right, he thought the rule had already been changed.  He was flat wrong.  Its only my opinion, but that doesn't seem to be proof of rules expertise on his part.

[fixyurdivot]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

You're right, he thought the rule had already been changed.  He was flat wrong.  Its only my opinion, but that doesn't seem to be proof of rules expertise on his part.

We were talking about this after our round today and suspect a good many more tour players, than most would believe, are not completely skookum on all the nuances of the rule book.

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

We were talking about this after our round today and suspect a good many more tour players, than most would believe, are not completely skookum on all the nuances of the rule book.

I agree, I've had the same impression.  Thats why I very rarely take their whining about the rules seriously, especially when they complain that the rules are written by "amateurs".  The folks who write the rules have studied them for years, and take it as a full time job.  I have to think that the rules would be a huge mess if written by the professional golfers.

[DaveP043]

15 hours ago, Shapotomous said:

Since it is a new rule we are proposing, much like the new putting green rule, it is not complicating anything.  I am specifically stating that movement must be lateral not vertical after a ball has been dropped or placed.  

This is part of the problem in revisions to the Rules, the Rules are interconnected.  At this time, every single time a ball is moved, as defined in the Rules, the direction of movement does not matter.  It is completely consistent from one rule to another, direction of movement doesn't matter.  Now you want to introduce a rule where vertical movement produces one result, horizontal movement produces a different result.  That is the exact opposite of simplification.  And this happens so rarely that, in my opinion, its not worth the additional complication of adding a new rule as you suggest.

 

15 hours ago, Shapotomous said:

Ricky could have dropped where he hit from initially so he did not have to drop on that bank.  With all the time he took looking at the shot after he dropped he clearly didn't think the ball was in danger of moving.

Charlie had the same option.  After all his complaining, after he repeatedly has said he THOUGHT the rule had been changed, do you wonder if he might have chosen the other option if he actually knew the correct rule?

[LICC]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

This is part of the problem in revisions to the Rules, the Rules are interconnected.  At this time, every single time a ball is moved, as defined in the Rules, the direction of movement does not matter.  It is completely consistent from one rule to another, direction of movement doesn't matter.  Now you want to introduce a rule where vertical movement produces one result, horizontal movement produces a different result.  That is the exact opposite of simplification.  And this happens so rarely that, in my opinion, its not worth the additional complication of adding a new rule as you suggest.

 

Charlie had the same option.  After all his complaining, after he repeatedly has said he THOUGHT the rule had been changed, do you wonder if he might have chosen the other option if he actually knew the correct rule?

I think you make very good and valid points, and I don't disagree. But on the other hand, couldn't a simple rule change be made just for drops? For any drop, the ball is not in play until it is struck. Wouldn't that be fair and easy to govern?

[DaveP043]

28 minutes ago, LICC said:

I think you make very good and valid points, and I don't disagree. But on the other hand, couldn't a simple rule change be made just for drops? For any drop, the ball is not in play until it is struck. Wouldn't that be fair and easy to govern?

That requires a change to Rule 14.4, which says that a ball is in play as soon as a ball is placed, replaced, or dropped with the intention for it to be in play.  If it is not in play, there is no penalty for a player (or opponent) moving it, intentionally or accidentally.  I don't think that would be the way to go, even if the situation warrants a change to the rules.  As we all know by now, I don't think it does.  Interesting enough, the poll is pretty evenly split right now (7 for a change, 6 for no), although most of the posts seem to support the change.

[LICC]

55 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

That requires a change to Rule 14.4, which says that a ball is in play as soon as a ball is placed, replaced, or dropped with the intention for it to be in play.  If it is not in play, there is no penalty for a player (or opponent) moving it, intentionally or accidentally.  I don't think that would be the way to go, even if the situation warrants a change to the rules.  As we all know by now, I don't think it does.  Interesting enough, the poll is pretty evenly split right now (7 for a change, 6 for no), although most of the posts seem to support the change.

Why do you think that would not be a good change? Do you think it could give some unfair advantage or easier ability to cheat? I can't think of any problem with considering a dropped or placed ball to not be in play until it is struck (or attempted to be struck). It seems similar to the ball on a tee box. If a ball falls off a tee, you aren't required to play it that way.

[Shapotomous]

I wonder how many of the 'no' votes would change to yes if it happened to them in a money match and cost $$ !?   

It's only conjecture but I doubt Charley would have taken the drop at he original spot of the shot if he knew the rule.  You see that occasionally but I don't remember seeing that too often.  I do remember Tiger at the Masters when I think his approach at 15 hit the pin and bounced back in the water.  He went back to the same spot but his drop was a little controversial at the time that's probably why I remember it.

I agree that very few if any pro's know the rules inside & out. But they have rules officials to consult with at every tournament.  I think their mistake is not getting the options fully explained to them before making a decision.  They get so much free relief from the results of a bad shot I don't have a lot of sympathy for them when it comes to rulings that don't meet their 'expectations'.    

 

[DaveP043]

Just now, LICC said:

Why do you think that would not be a good change? Do you think it could give some unfair advantage or easier ability to cheat? I can't think of any problem with considering a dropped or placed ball to not be in play until it is struck (or attempted to be struck). It seems similar to the ball on a tee box. If a ball falls off a tee, you aren't required to play it that way.

A tee is a different place, the ball is not in play at that point.  And yes, if a player can move a ball around with impunity, a ball that really should be in play, it certainly can lead to cheating opportunities.  But the primary thing, at least for me, is that it is most simple and most consistent to keep the rule as is, with any ball being in play as soon as it is dropped or placed.  And if a ball in play is moved by natural forces, it remains where it ends up.  If an exception must be made, it should be as small as it possibly can be and still accomplish the goal.

[DaveP043]

18 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

I do remember Tiger at the Masters when I think his approach at 15 hit the pin and bounced back in the water.  He went back to the same spot but his drop was a little controversial at the time that's probably why I remember it.

Yeah, if he had kept the entry point between himself and the hole, he'd have been in the left woods.  He mixed parts of two different relief rules, using the "replay the shot" along with the "as far back as you like" from the Back on the Line Relief.  And then he illustrated his confusion by talking publicly about going to "a good yardage".

I agree, Charlie wouldn't have given up 200+ yards in order to avoid the (pretty small) risk that his ball would begin moving after it was at rest.  I don't remember this happening at any other televised event, but its happened twice in Phoenix since the 2019 rules came out.  Perhaps its a course preparation thing as much as anything.  The best solution may be to revise the Penalty Area lines and/or to mow the grass just a little longer on the slopes.  The PGA Tour cannot unilaterally change the Rules of Golf, but they certainly can control the course set-up.

BTW, Charlie did respond to the criticism he's received.  https://www.si.com/golf/news/charley-hoffman-addresses-instagram-rant-that-criticized-usga-pga-tour

He seems to believe that the PGA Tour should define what rules should be changed....

""I was under the impression that the rule had changed," he said.  And I was frustrated when the rule hadn't changed, why it hadn't changed and I think there's some sort of ... I mean obviously we have a PGA Tour liaison that helps with the USGA and helps in figuring out what the rules should and shouldn't be."

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by DaveP043

[LICC]

34 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

A tee is a different place, the ball is not in play at that point.  And yes, if a player can move a ball around with impunity, a ball that really should be in play, it certainly can lead to cheating opportunities.  But the primary thing, at least for me, is that it is most simple and most consistent to keep the rule as is, with any ball being in play as soon as it is dropped or placed.  And if a ball in play is moved by natural forces, it remains where it ends up.  If an exception must be made, it should be as small as it possibly can be and still accomplish the goal.

I know you prefer to keep the rule as is, but I'm asking what is the rationale that the existing rule is better. When a ball should be "in play" is arbitrary any time it has to be dropped or teed up. If a ball goes into the water, its out. So you have to drop. You have to follow the rules for dropping, so you can't cheat in how you drop it.  Why should the tee box be different? If natural forces blows a ball off a tee, why is that different than natural forces moving a ball after it was dropped? 

[Shapotomous]

@DaveP043  whats the normally accepted timeframe involved for 14.2.b(2) when it says the ball must be replaced and let go so that it stays in that spot?  Is it a 2 or 3 second thing after you let go watching for movement or some longer period of time or not defined at all?  Generally you see the official and player watch the ball closely for movement (sometimes resetting it a few times) & agree the ball is back in play and the player picks up the tees marking the drop area but I never heard anyone mention they had to do it in a certain amount of time. 

If there is not time frame defined, with the rule as it stands now I'd set the ball and not agree that it is in play while i looked everything over (like Ricky was checking out his shot) then go back to the ball ready to hit it and say it's in play and pick up the tees.  

Also, if I was a tour player I'd pay extra commission % points for a caddie that was a rules guru.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't a player who places their ball leave the tee marker in play check the shot out and do all of that and if the ball moves just end up replacing it as it was before? Could this be the work around? Kinda like in Chess where if you put you hand on a piece you should move it and it is frowned upon to remove your hand and touch another piece to move? Basically the tee being lifted out of the ground is the player acceptance of the ball now officially being in play and applied to the rules as is? Or am I way off base? I'm not a rules guy and play by them, but do not going into the weeds of all in the ins and outs of all of them.