Famous Masters Rulings – #3
During the third round of the 2004 Masters, Ernie Els was the recipient of a favorable ruling that caused a lot of controversy at the time. Els hooked his tee shot on the 11th hole deep into the woods. In there, his ball was in a pile of rubble that had been put there when the grounds crew had cleaned up after a recent storm. Els ball was certainly unplayable because of all the branches and he probably couldn’t have moved them without moving his ball.
He asked for a ruling. The first official was a PGA Tour rules official and told him that no relief was possible. He then asked for a second opinion. The second official also works for the PGA Tour and also denied relief. He still wasn’t satisfied and asked for a third opinion. Will Nicholson, who is a member of the club and the chairman of the Rules Committee for the tournament was called. He came and said that the material was piled for removal and therefore Els should be given relief.
He dropped under Rule 25 and proceeded to make a bogey on the hole. Without the ruling he would certainly have scored one shot higher. Ernie went on to finish in second place, one shot behind Phil Mickelson.
A player in stroke play always has an option to ask for a second opinion and the official should always be willing to get someone else to give him one. He can even ask for more if he is still not satisfied. As we saw in the Palmer ruling, he could even opt to play 2 balls under Rule 3-3 and get the entire Rules Committee to rule.
Players hit balls into very unusual places at golf tournaments and the Rules Committee should take the time to analyze the entire course and come to an agreement on the various areas. This speeds up play and guarantees consistent rulings.
Was Els entitled to relief? Given the nature of Augusta National Golf Course, it is highly likely that this material was planned for removal, but the grounds crew didn’t get to it before the tournament because it was so far out of play. If it was piled for removal it does meet the definition of Ground Under Repair and the relief was correct. Only the staff and members at Augusta know that for sure.
John
What is always forgotten about this incident , is when EE was trying indentify his ball , it moved .
I still have this incident on tape , and the ball clearly moves .
Wayne Grady commentating on BBC said , he was “sure that the Masters Committee would be looking in to it ”
They did , and said there was no proof that the ball moved , which I stil find amazing to this day .
Brian,
Once it was determined that his ball was in an area of Ground Under Repair he was saved from any possible penalty for his ball having moved. Their explanation does leave something to be desired.
I thought that whenever you weren’t in a hazard, you were permitted to identify your ball even if that required moving (or partially cleaning) to do so. Isn’t there a ruling that says something like a ball covered in mud can have the mud removed so that you can see the identifying mark? (But, you can’t clean the whole ball, just enough to identify it.) I thought this was the same deal with being in a pile of debris, you could mark/lift/replace to identify.
Am I wrong about that?
Schultz,
Yes, but you have to follow procedure by telling your fellow competitor that you are going to lift it for identification, giving him a chance to observe the lifting and replacing and marking the spot before lifting.
As I recall, Ernie was just moving some grass around looking for his ID mark, without attempting to lift it for identification when it supposedly moved.
Thanks. In that case… ooops on Ernie.
since you can play from GUR isnt he ball in play until you notify your marker that you wish to invoke the GUR rule?
Therefore the penalty should have be imposed even though he got a drop?
Neil,
I don’t think the rule is really clear on this. Rule 18-2a says you are not penalized if your ball is moved in searching for it in an abnormal ground condition. If you look at identifying a ball as part of the searching process he shouldn’t be penalized. If you don’t, then if he has already declared that he wants relief (if it is deemed to be GUR), I wouldn’t penalize him, but if he hasn’t made that clear I think he should be penalized. He shouldn’t be able to get out of the penalty by suddenly deciding to use the GUR relief.
I don’t remember that part of the incident well enough to know when he did what.