Varner ruling.

[Newby]

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

'For' implies 'on behalf of' or 'instead of'. If the player wasn't aware that the scorer was carrying it, IMO that is not 'for'.

 

As the player seemingly knew it could not be carried (which is why he left it with the starter), why would he allow someone to carry it on his behalf? Or why not get his caddie to carry it for him?

 

Did the scorer actually pass the shaft to the player? There is a suggestion somewhere that it was passed to the player's 'agent' who had the new head and he assembled the club.

[rogolf]

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

'For' implies 'on behalf of' or 'instead of'. If the player wasn't aware that the scorer was carrying it, IMO that is not 'for'.

 

As the player seemingly knew it could not be carried (which is why he left it with the starter), why would he allow someone to carry it on his behalf? Or why not get his caddie to carry it for him?

 

Did the scorer actually pass the shaft to the player? There is a suggestion somewhere that it was passed to the player's 'agent' who had the new head and he assembled the club.

Aaahhh, and those from "somewhere" know more about the facts and the Rules than those who were on the scene and made the ruling? I don't think so.

[bladehunter]

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

'For' implies 'on behalf of' or 'instead of'. If the player wasn't aware that the scorer was carrying it, IMO that is not 'for'.

 

As the player seemingly knew it could not be carried (which is why he left it with the starter), why would he allow someone to carry it on his behalf? Or why not get his caddie to carry it for him?

 

Did the scorer actually pass the shaft to the player? There is a suggestion somewhere that it was passed to the player's 'agent' who had the new head and he assembled the club.

 

That’s absolutely what I’ve been saying

 

Officials interview states that the referee and caddie had conversation about the rule and thats when the shaft was left on the tee. Evidence there says the players intent was to follow the rule and not have it carried. Then a volunteer picks it up. Carries it. The question then has to become “ when doesn the player know he’s carrying it “? because we know his intent was for it to NOT be carried but to be left on the tee for his agent to grab.

 

How can you be so sure ROgolf that he knew that the shaft was being carried based on the evidence I just stated ?

[rogolf]

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

'For' implies 'on behalf of' or 'instead of'. If the player wasn't aware that the scorer was carrying it, IMO that is not 'for'.

 

As the player seemingly knew it could not be carried (which is why he left it with the starter), why would he allow someone to carry it on his behalf? Or why not get his caddie to carry it for him?

 

Did the scorer actually pass the shaft to the player? There is a suggestion somewhere that it was passed to the player's 'agent' who had the new head and he assembled the club.

 

That's absolutely what I've been saying

 

Officials interview states that the referee and caddie had conversation about the rule and thats when the shaft was left on the tee. Evidence there says the players intent was to follow the rule and not have it carried. Then a volunteer picks it up. Carries it. The question then has to become " when doesn the player know he's carrying it "? because we know his intent was for it to NOT be carried but to be left on the tee for his agent to grab.

 

How can you be so sure ROgolf that he knew that the shaft was being carried based on the evidence I just stated ?

I have complete confidence in the PGATour referees who were on site, investigated the situation on site and made the ruling according to the Rules. Anything else is pure speculation, not evidence.

[bladehunter]

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

'For' implies 'on behalf of' or 'instead of'. If the player wasn't aware that the scorer was carrying it, IMO that is not 'for'.

 

As the player seemingly knew it could not be carried (which is why he left it with the starter), why would he allow someone to carry it on his behalf? Or why not get his caddie to carry it for him?

 

Did the scorer actually pass the shaft to the player? There is a suggestion somewhere that it was passed to the player's 'agent' who had the new head and he assembled the club.

 

That's absolutely what I've been saying

 

Officials interview states that the referee and caddie had conversation about the rule and thats when the shaft was left on the tee. Evidence there says the players intent was to follow the rule and not have it carried. Then a volunteer picks it up. Carries it. The question then has to become " when doesn the player know he's carrying it "? because we know his intent was for it to NOT be carried but to be left on the tee for his agent to grab.

 

How can you be so sure ROgolf that he knew that the shaft was being carried based on the evidence I just stated ?

I have complete confidence in the PGATour referees who were on site, investigated the situation on site and made the ruling according to the Rules. Anything else is pure speculation, not evidence.

 

My wording came from the referees quote. It was his recital of the events that happened. The only thing not clarified is when the player knew about the carrying. So in your opinion that the referee is correct and mine. It is evidence.

[Newby]

My niggle is that the announcement I last saw said that the shaft was being carried 'for' the player and that led to the penalty.

I doesn't clarify the question 'Does it matter if the player was aware or not?'

 

I have no doubt the referee or committee got the rule right but the rule is arguably not clear (to me at least).

 

Either the player 'knew' or if he didn't, it makes no difference, there is still a breach.

 

 

I also wonder

1) how the situation differs from the words in red below and

2) how 'With the starter at the 1st tee' differs from 'other similar locations' in the second para below

 

Rule 4.1b(4) restricts a player from building a club from parts that he or she is carrying or parts that any other person is carrying for him or her. It does not restrict the player from retrieving parts to build a club or having parts brought to him or her.

For example, if a player is permitted to add a club (see Rule 4.1b(1)) or replace a damaged club (see Rule 4.1b(3)), club components brought from the clubhouse (such as the player's locker), the golf shop, or a manufacturer's truck, or other similar locations, are not considered to be "carried by anyone for the player during the round" and are allowed to be assembled by the player or anyone else.

 

 

A clarification would be useful

[bladehunter]

My niggle is that the announcement I last saw said that the shaft was being carried 'for' the player and that led to the penalty.

I doesn't clarify the question 'Does it matter if the player was aware or not?'

 

I have no doubt the referee or committee got the rule right but the rule is arguably not clear (to me at least).

 

Yes. This is the opinion I’m settling into too. They very may have got it correct. We don’t have enough info to say.

 

But the side issue is for me , with a rule that leaves some grey t area like this one , and a player who asks well before hand for help , I also wonder how this can happen ? I still say more people dropped this ball than the player. And I think his core intentions and actions were correct.

[Newby]

I have added to my post

[bladehunter]

I have added to my post

 

See it. And still agree.

 

It’s not black and white. Which is why I’ve argued with those saying it’s “ straight forward “. It’s not.

 

Then roll back to when Varner asks for help or clarification to begin with. A straightforward answer would be “ you can’t add a club “. Or you cannot replace a club”. But this rule requires you to go to 4.1 Then reads it an is sent to 4.1b (4).

 

What is even worse is that 4.1a (3) is the reason for penalty given in the officials interview. Which is when he mentions “ you can’t be adjusting clubs on course “. ????

Hardly straightforward for a guy who’s asking for help.

[nsxguy]

My niggle is that the announcement I last saw said that the shaft was being carried 'for' the player and that led to the penalty.

I doesn't clarify the question 'Does it matter if the player was aware or not?'

 

I have no doubt the referee or committee got the rule right but the rule is arguably not clear (to me at least).

 

Yes. This is the opinion I'm settling into too. They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say.

 

But the side issue is for me , with a rule that leaves some grey t area like this one , and a player who asks well before hand for help , I also wonder how this can happen ? I still say more people dropped this ball than the player. And I think his core intentions and actions were correct.

 

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

[bladehunter]

My niggle is that the announcement I last saw said that the shaft was being carried 'for' the player and that led to the penalty.

I doesn't clarify the question 'Does it matter if the player was aware or not?'

 

I have no doubt the referee or committee got the rule right but the rule is arguably not clear (to me at least).

 

Yes. This is the opinion I'm settling into too. They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say.

 

But the side issue is for me , with a rule that leaves some grey t area like this one , and a player who asks well before hand for help , I also wonder how this can happen ? I still say more people dropped this ball than the player. And I think his core intentions and actions were correct.

 

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

I read his post as same as what i said . They got it correct assuming that they know more than we do. And that knowledge is that Varner knew the shaft was being carried before it was presented to his agent for assembly.

 

The grey area is the word “for” and the time at which The player knew the shaft was being carried.

[nsxguy]

My niggle is that the announcement I last saw said that the shaft was being carried 'for' the player and that led to the penalty.

I doesn't clarify the question 'Does it matter if the player was aware or not?'

 

I have no doubt the referee or committee got the rule right but the rule is arguably not clear (to me at least).

 

Yes. This is the opinion I'm settling into too. They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say.

 

But the side issue is for me , with a rule that leaves some grey t area like this one , and a player who asks well before hand for help , I also wonder how this can happen ? I still say more people dropped this ball than the player. And I think his core intentions and actions were correct.

 

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

I read his post as same as what i said . They got it correct assuming that they know more than we do. And that knowledge is that Varner knew the shaft was being carried before it was presented to his agent for assembly.

 

The grey area is the word "for" and the time at which The player knew the shaft was being carried.

 

My friend, you said (as quoted) "They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say."

 

I asked this earlier in the thread and got no "pushback".

 

Not that it matters, because it doesn't, the time the player knew the shaft was being carried is irrelevant. WHY the shaft was carried is irrelevant. The component used to assemble the club was traveling along with the group,,,,,,,,, and there's nothing in the Rule about WHO is carrying it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the rule says "anyone".

 

But if the marker was NOT carrying it for Varner (your "grey area"), what WAS he/she carrying it for ? A souvenir ? To use as an alignment stick when he/she practices ? What ? Have we heard from the marker ?

 

And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?

[Mr. Bean]

Why else would he be carrying it, if not for the player?

'For' implies 'on behalf of' or 'instead of'. If the player wasn't aware that the scorer was carrying it, IMO that is not 'for'.

 

As the player seemingly knew it could not be carried (which is why he left it with the starter), why would he allow someone to carry it on his behalf? Or why not get his caddie to carry it for him?

 

Did the scorer actually pass the shaft to the player? There is a suggestion somewhere that it was passed to the player's 'agent' who had the new head and he assembled the club.

 

That's absolutely what I've been saying

 

Officials interview states that the referee and caddie had conversation about the rule and thats when the shaft was left on the tee. Evidence there says the players intent was to follow the rule and not have it carried. Then a volunteer picks it up. Carries it. The question then has to become " when doesn the player know he's carrying it "? because we know his intent was for it to NOT be carried but to be left on the tee for his agent to grab.

 

How can you be so sure ROgolf that he knew that the shaft was being carried based on the evidence I just stated ?

I have complete confidence in the PGATour referees who were on site, investigated the situation on site and made the ruling according to the Rules. Anything else is pure speculation, not evidence.

 

My wording came from the referees quote. It was his recital of the events that happened. The only thing not clarified is when the player knew about the carrying. So in your opinion that the referee is correct and mine. It is evidence.

 

Which quote? In GD interview the referee said that both Varner and his caddie KNEW that the scorer was carrying the shaft.

[bladehunter]

ROgolf-

In the same quote it lists the conversation between caddie/player and the referee. And the Laying down of the shaft on the tee for the agent to pickup later.

 

It’s thefe. I’m not making it up. And I m not going back and finding it. It’s also quoted several times in this thread.

[bladehunter]

My niggle is that the announcement I last saw said that the shaft was being carried 'for' the player and that led to the penalty.

I doesn't clarify the question 'Does it matter if the player was aware or not?'

 

I have no doubt the referee or committee got the rule right but the rule is arguably not clear (to me at least).

 

Yes. This is the opinion I'm settling into too. They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say.

 

But the side issue is for me , with a rule that leaves some grey t area like this one , and a player who asks well before hand for help , I also wonder how this can happen ? I still say more people dropped this ball than the player. And I think his core intentions and actions were correct.

 

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

I read his post as same as what i said . They got it correct assuming that they know more than we do. And that knowledge is that Varner knew the shaft was being carried before it was presented to his agent for assembly.

 

The grey area is the word "for" and the time at which The player knew the shaft was being carried.

 

My friend, you said (as quoted) "They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say."

 

I asked this earlier in the thread and got no "pushback".

 

Not that it matters, because it doesn't, the time the player knew the shaft was being carried is irrelevant. WHY the shaft was carried is irrelevant. The component used to assemble the club was traveling along with the group,,,,,,,,, and there's nothing in the Rule about WHO is carrying it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the rule says "anyone".

 

But if the marker was NOT carrying it for Varner (your "grey area"), what WAS he/she carrying it for ? A souvenir ? To use as an alignment stick when he/she practices ? What ? Have we heard from the marker ?

 

And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?

 

For the 12th time. The word “ for” is not clearly defined. For generally means at the request of someone. Or at their hire. Etc. I think that word needs explaining. This isn’t even a person of his team. For all we know the scorer hands the shaft off to the agent before the player knows and the agent assembles it and hands to player. Later uses it and poof. Is penalized thinking the agent grabbed it from where he left it ( on the tee) and brought it to him. That’s the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand. That they know now. He may very well be penalized for the actions of a volunteer that he knew nothing about until after the penalty.

 

Until someone says that’s not the case we do not know. But the possibility for this scenario exists and that’s what I’d love to see cleared up.

[deadsolid...shank]

ROgolf-

In the same quote it lists the conversation between caddie/player and the referee. And the Laying down of the shaft on the tee for the agent to pickup later.

 

It’s thefe. I’m not making it up. And I m not going back and finding it. It’s also quoted several times in this thread.

 

 

 

I’ve refrained from coming back in here for a while, but I really don’t care any longer. Bean, if you don’t want to read my posts then block me, otherwise just don’t reply. It’s pretty simple.

 

 

 

It’s in the first listed release. Post #72 in this thread by KevCarter. In that release there is no mention of Varner knowing, just that it was carrried and assembled on the course. The GD quote does say he was aware. It appears this one came later.

[nsxguy]

 

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

I read his post as same as what i said . They got it correct assuming that they know more than we do. And that knowledge is that Varner knew the shaft was being carried before it was presented to his agent for assembly.

 

The grey area is the word "for" and the time at which The player knew the shaft was being carried.

 

My friend, you said (as quoted) "They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say."

 

I asked this earlier in the thread and got no "pushback".

 

Not that it matters, because it doesn't, the time the player knew the shaft was being carried is irrelevant. WHY the shaft was carried is irrelevant. The component used to assemble the club was traveling along with the group,,,,,,,,, and there's nothing in the Rule about WHO is carrying it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the rule says "anyone".

 

But if the marker was NOT carrying it for Varner (your "grey area"), what WAS he/she carrying it for ? A souvenir ? To use as an alignment stick when he/she practices ? What ? Have we heard from the marker ?

 

And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?

 

For the 12th time. The word " for" is not clearly defined. For generally means at the request of someone. Or at their hire. Etc. I think that word needs explaining. This isn't even a person of his team. For all we know the scorer hands the shaft off to the agent before the player knows and the agent assembles it and hands to player. Later uses it and poof. Is penalized thinking the agent grabbed it from where he left it ( on the tee) and brought it to him. That's the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand. That they know now. He may very well be penalized for the actions of a volunteer that he knew nothing about until after the penalty.

 

Until someone says that's not the case we do not know. But the possibility for this scenario exists and that's what I'd love to see cleared up.

 

I should've know not to write such a long post so I'll ask again.

 

"And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?"

 

 

And your owns words just now "That's the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand"

 

They are "aware that is was carried". What is unclear about this ? "knew" is the past tense of "know". If they "knew", or "aware" if you prefer, they did know "beforehand".

[KevCarter]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

One thing that is obviously incorrect, I think we all agree, the scorer was carrying the SHAFT, not the CLUB, which makes the entire paragraph suspect.

 

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. – Harold Varner III was the victim of an unusual rules breach during Thursday’s opening round of THE PLAYERS Championship.

 

Varner III was assessed a two-shot penalty after his round – turning an even-par 72 into a 2-over 74 – for using a club he had assembled on course after his round begun.

 

The 28-year-old came into his fourth PLAYERS Championship with confidence after a T7 last season at TPC Sawgrass but damaged his driver in his opening round warmup.

 

Having alerted officials he intended to have it replaced, Varner began his round with just 13 clubs while his agent went to get a replacement.

 

This is allowed under Rule 4.1b.

 

Varner wanted to keep the original shaft, but under the same rule he is unable to take the shaft with him on to the course and have the new club assembled during play.

 

Once he became aware of this, he left the shaft on the tee where his agent could retrieve it and assemble the club in the locker room per the rules.

 

A walking scorer – hoping to be helpful after seeing the loose piece of equipment – saw the shaft and brought it onto the course for Varner. When the driver head was procured, the club was assembled on course in violation of the rule.

 

The rule is in place essentially to stop players having clubs built to changing conditions on the course.

 

Rules officials had no choice but to assess the two-stroke penalty to Varner on the hole he assembled the club, which was the par-5 11th, his second hole of the day.

 

“We were under the impression he was going to take the driver back to the locker room and his agent was going to come back with another one,” PGA TOUR Vice President of Rules and Competition Mark Russell explained.

 

“When they brought the head out and assembled it out there, it broke Rule 4. Can't do that. They don't want clubs assembled and adjusted on the golf course. So that's the reason for that rule.

 

“The rule basically says a player must not build a club from parts carried by anyone for the player during the round. They were aware of that situation, so that's why he received a two-stroke penalty.”

 

Varner is not accused of deliberately trying to flout the rules; in fact he was in communication with officials throughout but suffered from a misunderstanding.

 

“Harold was trying not to do anything wrong,” Russell said.

 

“I guess they (the scorer) were thinking they were helping out or whatever, but when Harold and his caddie were aware that a walking scorer was carrying the golf club and it was assembled on the golf course, that's when it violated the rule.”

[Newby]

 

 

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

The grey area is the meaning of 'carrying for the player'. I said the referee got it right because presumably someone who knew the meaning told him.

 

But I still can't reconcile it with:

 

It does not restrict the player from retrieving parts to build a club or having parts brought to him or her.

 

Was the scorer not bringing the parts to him?

[rogolf]

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

The grey area is the meaning of 'carrying for the player'. I said the referee got it right because presumably someone who knew the meaning told him.

 

But I still can't reconcile it with:

 

It does not restrict the player from retrieving parts to build a club or having parts brought to him or her.

 

Was the scorer not bringing the parts to him?

I guess you'll just have to live with that not being reconciled in your mind (or ask your friends at the R&A). The PGATour referees understand the difference and, imo, applied the Rule according to the facts of the situation. It's not a new Rule, it's been in place since at least 2012.

[deadsolid...shank]

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

The grey area is the meaning of 'carrying for the player'. I said the referee got it right because presumably someone who knew the meaning told him.

 

But I still can't reconcile it with:

 

It does not restrict the player from retrieving parts to build a club or having parts brought to him or her.

 

Was the scorer not bringing the parts to him?

I guess you'll just have to live with that not being reconciled in your mind (or ask your friends at the R&A). The PGATour referees understand the difference and, imo, applied the Rule according to the facts of the situation. It's not a new Rule, it's been in place since at least 2012.

 

I agree the rule was applied according to the rule. Although I’m not sure anyone is really disagreeing with that. Ro, do think something will come out with more clarification on defining “carrying for” or anything relating to a player’s knowledge that it is being carried?

[Sawgrass]

 

For the 12th time. The word " for" is not clearly defined. For generally means at the request of someone. Or at their hire. Etc. I think that word needs explaining. This isn't even a person of his team. For all we know the scorer hands the shaft off to the agent before the player knows and the agent assembles it and hands to player. Later uses it and poof. Is penalized thinking the agent grabbed it from where he left it ( on the tee) and brought it to him. That's the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand. That they know now. He may very well be penalized for the actions of a volunteer that he knew nothing about until after the penalty.

 

Until someone says that's not the case we do not know. But the possibility for this scenario exists and that's what I'd love to see cleared up.

 

IMO "for" is defined. Whether it's clear or not is debatable since the concept seems timing-dependent. Nevertheless here's a repost of what it means:

 

4.1b(4)/1 – Club Components May Be Assembled When Not Carried By or For Player

Rule 4.1b(4) restricts a player from building a club from parts that he or she is carrying or parts that any other person is carrying for him or her. It does not restrict the player from retrieving parts to build a club or having parts brought to him or her.

For example, if a player is permitted to add a club (see Rule 4.1b(1)) or replace a damaged club (see Rule 4.1b(3)), club components brought from the clubhouse (such as the player’s locker), the golf shop, or a manufacturer’s truck, or other similar locations, are not considered to be “carried by anyone for the player during the round ” and are allowed to be assembled by the player or anyone else.

 

Clearly, the RBs don't want us to be prepared in advance to switch components/build clubs. Yet under certain circumstances we are allowed to have components "carried to us" which are not considered "carried for us."

 

Perhaps the rules are too generous, in that in order to be generous they are complex.

 

The single point of clarity I have despite all of the lack of detail in what happened is that without the specifics we have a presumption of guilt/error starting us off based on whether we are people who think the responsibility for safely navigating the problem is primarily the players' or the refs' to begin with. And that bias ain't goin' nowhere.

[nsxguy]

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

The grey area is the meaning of 'carrying for the player'. I said the referee got it right because presumably someone who knew the meaning told him.

 

But I still can't reconcile it with:

 

It does not restrict the player from retrieving parts to build a club or having parts brought to him or her.

 

Was the scorer not bringing the parts to him?

 

I guess the only thing I can say is that IF the marker walked over, picked up the shaft and handed it to Varner right then and there he would have "brought" the shaft to him.

 

Since he picked it up 1 or more holes earlier I'd say he was "carrying" it for Varner; exactly what is prohibited by the rule.

 

The fact that he gave it up to Varner when he did indicates to ME that he was carrying if FOR Varner. He didn't simply "bring" it to Varner.

 

Anyway, that's how I view it. :dntknw:

[bladehunter]

 

I don't understand. Newby says he sure they got the rule right and you follow up with "they MAY have got it correct". So which is it ?

 

And might I ask what the "grey area" (presumably in the Rule) is, especially in this particular situation ?

 

TIA

 

I read his post as same as what i said . They got it correct assuming that they know more than we do. And that knowledge is that Varner knew the shaft was being carried before it was presented to his agent for assembly.

 

The grey area is the word "for" and the time at which The player knew the shaft was being carried.

 

My friend, you said (as quoted) "They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say."

 

I asked this earlier in the thread and got no "pushback".

 

Not that it matters, because it doesn't, the time the player knew the shaft was being carried is irrelevant. WHY the shaft was carried is irrelevant. The component used to assemble the club was traveling along with the group,,,,,,,,, and there's nothing in the Rule about WHO is carrying it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the rule says "anyone".

 

But if the marker was NOT carrying it for Varner (your "grey area"), what WAS he/she carrying it for ? A souvenir ? To use as an alignment stick when he/she practices ? What ? Have we heard from the marker ?

 

And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?

 

For the 12th time. The word " for" is not clearly defined. For generally means at the request of someone. Or at their hire. Etc. I think that word needs explaining. This isn't even a person of his team. For all we know the scorer hands the shaft off to the agent before the player knows and the agent assembles it and hands to player. Later uses it and poof. Is penalized thinking the agent grabbed it from where he left it ( on the tee) and brought it to him. That's the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand. That they know now. He may very well be penalized for the actions of a volunteer that he knew nothing about until after the penalty.

 

Until someone says that's not the case we do not know. But the possibility for this scenario exists and that's what I'd love to see cleared up.

 

I should've know not to write such a long post so I'll ask again.

 

"And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?"

 

 

And your owns words just now "That's the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand"

 

They are "aware that is was carried". What is unclear about this ? "knew" is the past tense of "know". If they "knew", or "aware" if you prefer, they did know "beforehand".

 

Where are you quoting this from.

 

I find nothing that says “ the marker gave the shaft to Varner “

 

 

[nsxguy]

 

My friend, you said (as quoted) "They very may have got it correct. We don't have enough info to say."

 

I asked this earlier in the thread and got no "pushback".

 

Not that it matters, because it doesn't, the time the player knew the shaft was being carried is irrelevant. WHY the shaft was carried is irrelevant. The component used to assemble the club was traveling along with the group,,,,,,,,, and there's nothing in the Rule about WHO is carrying it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the rule says "anyone".

 

But if the marker was NOT carrying it for Varner (your "grey area"), what WAS he/she carrying it for ? A souvenir ? To use as an alignment stick when he/she practices ? What ? Have we heard from the marker ?

 

And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?

 

For the 12th time. The word " for" is not clearly defined. For generally means at the request of someone. Or at their hire. Etc. I think that word needs explaining. This isn't even a person of his team. For all we know the scorer hands the shaft off to the agent before the player knows and the agent assembles it and hands to player. Later uses it and poof. Is penalized thinking the agent grabbed it from where he left it ( on the tee) and brought it to him. That's the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand. That they know now. He may very well be penalized for the actions of a volunteer that he knew nothing about until after the penalty.

 

Until someone says that's not the case we do not know. But the possibility for this scenario exists and that's what I'd love to see cleared up.

 

I should've know not to write such a long post so I'll ask again.

 

"And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?"

 

 

And your owns words just now "That's the info we do not have. All we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried. Not that they knew before hand"

 

They are "aware that is was carried". What is unclear about this ? "knew" is the past tense of "know". If they "knew", or "aware" if you prefer, they did know "beforehand".

 

Where are you quoting this from.

 

I find nothing that says " the marker gave the shaft to Varner "

 

There ya go, move the goalposts. Sorry if I "misspoke".

 

Well, I do remember you saying you love to argue (or was that "like" to argue ?). :yes:

 

It doesn't matter if he gave it to Varner OR gave it to HV's agent OR gave it to an official or if he gave it to Johnny Miller.

 

So the only questions remaining, although i suspect you'll come up with something else, is are you denying the marker carried it for 1 or more holes ? Or are you back to that the marker wasn't carrying it "for" Varner ? :pardon:

[bladehunter]

It matters a great deal. That’s why I mentioned it.

 

I’m not back to anything. That’s what I’ve been saying

[Mr. Bean]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

I have no clue why you posted this just for me. I did read it at the time. What has been the problem in this thread is that some persons not knowing neither the Rules nor what happened has been keeping on to insist one single part of one single quote of a one single interview was the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

There is NO WAY anyone of us as not having been there with the player to know what REALLY happened and thus it is honestly stupid trying to make a point relying on pieces of something that are not facts. By this I do not mean you, turtle, but some other persons easily identifiable.

[nsxguy]

It matters a great deal. That's why I mentioned it.

 

I'm not back to anything. That's what I've been saying

 

Why does it matter who gave it to him ? By RULE of course.

[bladehunter]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

I have no clue why you posted this just for me. I did read it at the time. What has been the problem in this thread is that some persons not knowing neither the Rules nor what happened has been keeping on to insist one single part of one single quote of a one single interview was the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

There is NO WAY anyone of us as not having been there with the player to know what REALLY happened and thus it is honestly stupid trying to make a point relying on pieces of something that are not facts. By this I do not mean you, turtle, but some other persons easily identifiable.

 

So in short. You don’t know. I don’t know. But we should take the ruling as the best possible outcome because ...... the referees are never wrong ?

 

Ok

[KevCarter]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

I have no clue why you posted this just for me. I did read it at the time. What has been the problem in this thread is that some persons not knowing neither the Rules nor what happened has been keeping on to insist one single part of one single quote of a one single interview was the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

There is NO WAY anyone of us as not having been there with the player to know what REALLY happened and thus it is honestly stupid trying to make a point relying on pieces of something that are not facts. By this I do not mean you, turtle, but some other persons easily identifiable.

 

My apologies my friend, I misunderstood thinking you hadn't seen it. Cheers!