Varner ruling.

[bladehunter]

Opinions on this article

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/players-championship-2019-harold-varner-iii-gets-unusual-two-stroke-penalty-for-assembling-a-club-on-the-course/amp

 

They seem to focus on the assembly of the club happening on course not the carrying of it. And it pretty clearly states that Varner didn’t know the scorer had picked it up until they got the head to assemble it.

 

 

Starting to smell a touch no ?

 

They say due to 4.1-b. Then that sends to (4). Which states that the club can’t be built from parts carried by anyone FOR the player. To me that implies at the players behest. If the player doesn’t know than it cannot be FOR the player.

 

Someone need to text Harold and tell him to appeal this if he didn’t know the shaft was being carried.

[deadsolid...shank]

Opinions on this article

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/players-championship-2019-harold-varner-iii-gets-unusual-two-stroke-penalty-for-assembling-a-club-on-the-course/amp

 

They seem to focus on the assembly of the club happening on course not the carrying of it. And it pretty clearly states that Varner didn’t know the scorer had picked it up until they got the head to assemble it.

 

 

Starting to smell a touch no ?

 

They say due to 4.1-b. Then that sends to (4). Which states that the club can’t be built from parts carried by anyone FOR the player. To me that implies at the players behest. If the player doesn’t know than it cannot be FOR the player.

 

Someone need to text Harold and tell him to appeal this if he didn’t know the shaft was being carried.

 

Hmm, isn’t it to bad no one questioned whether he knew or not isn’t it.......

 

(Yes, I’m still harboring a grudge from last night?)

[nsxguy]

Sawgrass – I agree it is deep in the weeds but. Isn't it a possible scenario that was described in this incident? As in I'm still not sure that this player knew that the shaft was being carried around . Iunderstood initially that he had laid it on the Teebox and that it was picked up by the scorer? All questions not statements if that is now proven incorrect I'm all ears.

 

Can the shaft be carried FOR the player if the player doesn't know it? Honest question. Not trying to be argumentative.

 

I think the answer to TP's and bh's question is Occam's Razor, or, why ELSE would the scorer have been carrying the shaft if not "FOR" the player ? Was he/she going to keep it as a souvenir ? Use it for their own alignment rod ?

 

In the absence of any other explanation the most obvious one is he/she was carrying it "for the player". Whether the player knew it or not.

 

Having said all this couldn't the Tour rescind the penalty ? They did it for McCarthy (before the clarification - or was it in concert with the clarification ?).

 

Heck, even ol' Beannie claimed "Force majeure". :cheesy:

[nsxguy]

Wow. I finally see a small blue button that says settings.

 

And changed it. And poof. 2 more options appear.

 

Why on earth would they make an app with the default setting being " cliffs notes " of the rules ??!!!

 

No wonder I can't fnd anything. What circumstance would anyone want a snippet of the rule ?

 

You seem to be in a spirit of complaining over just about anything, aren't you?

 

Not really. I've been reading that app for 4 weeks now. And had no clue it was in " half a** " mode. I simply asked what the purpose of that mode was. To confuse ?

 

I'm fully admitted to struggling to understand the many nooks and crannies of the rules. But I'm not illiterate. In fact I'm fluent in 2 languages, and yet I admit I have issues with text based learning. I don't often see obvious things. It's not from lack of trying. So I tried to simplify by downloading the rules to my phone. For reading and studying anytime. Vs googling and not knowing if I m reading it all or someone's interpretation etc

 

My friend, you yourself say you "don't often see obvious things". Since this is the case, when you try to argue discuss these things, perhaps it would be prudent for you to look into them a bit more before "discussing" ?

 

Have you looked at the USGA Rules site on a laptop or desktop ? At the top of every(?) page there are 3 tabs, "Player's Edition", "Full Rules", and "Interpretations".

 

I don't use my phone very much for the internet so I have a very limited "data" plan but just now, being at home and able to use my wi-fi, I fired up the USGA app.

 

On the very first page it says "Player's Edition" on top and below says "Full Rules" and below that says "Official Guide".

 

Forgetting that for the moment and assuming you're in a hurry (or it now opens right TO Player's Edition - don't know), wouldn't the PHRASE "Player's Edition" trigger your thinking to "there MUST be some OTHER "edition"" ? And wouldn't you, at some point, try to find out what this "other" edition actually is ?

 

The screenshots you yourself posted has,

 

{banner saying "Full Rules} For more information on sharing, adding or replacing clubs, including a limited exception for when you did not cause the damage.

[Halebopp]

If the artice is correct in Varner knowing the scorer had the shaft, I have no issues with him being penalized. I do have issues with how the rules official explains the situation and what action actually caused the penalty shots.

[ThinkingPlus]

Sawgrass – I agree it is deep in the weeds but. Isn't it a possible scenario that was described in this incident? As in I'm still not sure that this player knew that the shaft was being carried around . Iunderstood initially that he had laid it on the Teebox and that it was picked up by the scorer? All questions not statements if that is now proven incorrect I'm all ears.

 

Can the shaft be carried FOR the player if the player doesn't know it? Honest question. Not trying to be argumentative.

 

I think the answer to TP's and bh's question is Occam's Razor, or, why ELSE would the scorer have been carrying the shaft if not "FOR" the player ? Was he/she going to keep it as a souvenir ? Use it for their own alignment rod ?

 

In the absence of any other explanation the most obvious one is he/she was carrying it "for the player". Whether the player knew it or not.

 

Having said all this couldn't the Tour rescind the penalty ? They did it for McCarthy (before the clarification - or was it in concert with the clarification ?).

 

Heck, even ol' Beannie claimed "Force majeure". :cheesy:

How can you penalize the player because of the "intent" of a non-participant?

[HitEmTrue]

Opinions on this article

 

https://www.golfdige...-the-course/amp

 

They seem to focus on the assembly of the club happening on course not the carrying of it. And it pretty clearly states that Varner didn't know the scorer had picked it up until they got the head to assemble it.

 

 

Starting to smell a touch no ?

 

They say due to 4.1-b. Then that sends to (4). Which states that the club can't be built from parts carried by anyone FOR the player. To me that implies at the players behest. If the player doesn't know than it cannot be FOR the player.

 

Someone need to text Harold and tell him to appeal this if he didn't know the shaft was being carried.

 

Maybe the words, "a player must not build a club from parts carried by anyone for the player during the round," is more restrictive than I (and others) thought. Taken literally, it could mean that it doesn't matter who is carrying the parts (the player, caddie, an agent)...the club cannot be built on the course. It would also mean that scorer's carrying of the shaft was irrelevant regarding the rules breach, except for the fact that it prevented the agent from putting together the club off the course.

[nsxguy]

Sawgrass – I agree it is deep in the weeds but. Isn't it a possible scenario that was described in this incident? As in I'm still not sure that this player knew that the shaft was being carried around . Iunderstood initially that he had laid it on the Teebox and that it was picked up by the scorer? All questions not statements if that is now proven incorrect I'm all ears.

 

Can the shaft be carried FOR the player if the player doesn't know it? Honest question. Not trying to be argumentative.

 

I think the answer to TP's and bh's question is Occam's Razor, or, why ELSE would the scorer have been carrying the shaft if not "FOR" the player ? Was he/she going to keep it as a souvenir ? Use it for their own alignment rod ?

 

In the absence of any other explanation the most obvious one is he/she was carrying it "for the player". Whether the player knew it or not.

 

Having said all this couldn't the Tour rescind the penalty ? They did it for McCarthy (before the clarification - or was it in concert with the clarification ?).

 

Heck, even ol' Beannie claimed "Force majeure". :cheesy:

How can you penalize the player because of the "intent" of a non-participant?

 

I get what you're saying and as I alluded to I think it's unfair and the penalty should be rescinded and the Rule clarified.

 

But by Rule the club WAS being carried FOR the player even without his knowledge (assumption). And that WAS what you and bh were asking. :dntknw:

[bladehunter]

Opinions on this article

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/players-championship-2019-harold-varner-iii-gets-unusual-two-stroke-penalty-for-assembling-a-club-on-the-course/amp

 

They seem to focus on the assembly of the club happening on course not the carrying of it. And it pretty clearly states that Varner didn’t know the scorer had picked it up until they got the head to assemble it.

 

 

Starting to smell a touch no ?

 

They say due to 4.1-b. Then that sends to (4). Which states that the club can’t be built from parts carried by anyone FOR the player. To me that implies at the players behest. If the player doesn’t know than it cannot be FOR the player.

 

Someone need to text Harold and tell him to appeal this if he didn’t know the shaft was being carried.

 

Hmm, isn’t it to bad no one questioned whether he knew or not isn’t it.......

 

(Yes, I’m still harboring a grudge from last night?)

 

Lol. Yea. Totally a shame. Wow

[bladehunter]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I’m a betting man. ( I’m not ). But let’s say yes. And I’ve bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I’m “ carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it “. Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

 

 

Ignore the Augusta cell phone policy etc as this example will work with any tournament.

[bladehunter]

Opinions on this article

 

https://www.golfdige...-the-course/amp

 

They seem to focus on the assembly of the club happening on course not the carrying of it. And it pretty clearly states that Varner didn't know the scorer had picked it up until they got the head to assemble it.

 

 

Starting to smell a touch no ?

 

They say due to 4.1-b. Then that sends to (4). Which states that the club can't be built from parts carried by anyone FOR the player. To me that implies at the players behest. If the player doesn't know than it cannot be FOR the player.

 

Someone need to text Harold and tell him to appeal this if he didn't know the shaft was being carried.

 

Maybe the words, "a player must not build a club from parts carried by anyone for the player during the round," is more restrictive than I (and others) thought. Taken literally, it could mean that it doesn't matter who is carrying the parts (the player, caddie, an agent)...the club cannot be built on the course. It would also mean that scorer's carrying of the shaft was irrelevant regarding the rules breach, except for the fact that it prevented the agent from putting together the club off the course.

 

That I could buy. But that’s not the reasoning or part of the rule given by the officials.

[ThinkingPlus]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

 

 

Ignore the Augusta cell phone policy etc as this example will work with any tournament.

Not unless he tried to use it.

[bladehunter]

If the artice is correct in Varner knowing the scorer had the shaft, I have no issues with him being penalized. I do have issues with how the rules official explains the situation and what action actually caused the penalty shots.

I read it to say that he knew when he saw them assembled it and that’s why the penalty is issued for that hole. Otherwise if he knows the whole time why isn’t it a max 4 shot penalty for more than 2 holes ? Or possible DQ ?

[HitEmTrue]

That I could buy. But that's not the reasoning or part of the rule given by the officials.

 

That's exactly the reasoning the rules official gave in that article.

 

"[The club] cannot be assembled on the golf course. His caddie was told that when he asked one of our officials. So he left it there on the tee, and the walking scorer picked it up and took it on the golf course, and Harold and the caddie were aware of this. So 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."

 

At no point in that article does the official say that the penalty was because the scorer was carrying the shaft around the course.

[bladehunter]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

 

 

Ignore the Augusta cell phone policy etc as this example will work with any tournament.

Not unless he tried to use it.

 

Ah. Yes. Lol. He would need to use it. But you see where I’m going? If the player didn’t order the carrying. Did the carrying take place ? At least in the “FOR” vein ?

[Sawgrass]

Sawgrass – I agree it is deep in the weeds but. Isn't it a possible scenario that was described in this incident? As in I'm still not sure that this player knew that the shaft was being carried around . Iunderstood initially that he had laid it on the Teebox and that it was picked up by the scorer? All questions not statements if that is now proven incorrect I'm all ears.

 

Can the shaft be carried FOR the player if the player doesn't know it? Honest question. Not trying to be argumentative.

 

I think the answer to TP's and bh's question is Occam's Razor, or, why ELSE would the scorer have been carrying the shaft if not "FOR" the player ? Was he/she going to keep it as a souvenir ? Use it for their own alignment rod ?

 

In the absence of any other explanation the most obvious one is he/she was carrying it "for the player". Whether the player knew it or not.

 

Having said all this couldn't the Tour rescind the penalty ? They did it for McCarthy (before the clarification - or was it in concert with the clarification ?).

 

Heck, even ol' Beannie claimed "Force majeure". :cheesy:

How can you penalize the player because of the "intent" of a non-participant?

Very carefully?

 

But there are legitimate times when this might be done. If a non-participant offers advice to a player, and the player fails to tell them to stop, the player can be held responsible for the non-participant's illegal intention to help.

[nsxguy]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

I'd say, according to the Rule, only if he USES it.

 

Yes ? Or do you disagree ?

 

 

edited to add - darn it, I shoulda know somebody woulda caught it by the time I saw it. :taunt:

[nsxguy]

If the artice is correct in Varner knowing the scorer had the shaft, I have no issues with him being penalized. I do have issues with how the rules official explains the situation and what action actually caused the penalty shots.

I read it to say that he knew when he saw them assembled it and that's why the penalty is issued for that hole. Otherwise if he knows the whole time why isn't it a max 4 shot penalty for more than 2 holes ? Or possible DQ ?

 

Why would ANYBODY care what that article says when the TITLE is wrong ?!?!?! :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

[HitEmTrue]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

I'd say, according to the Rule, only is he USES it.

 

 

Or when the player builds a club with it.

[nsxguy]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

I'd say, according to the Rule, only is he USES it.

 

 

Or when the player builds a club with it.

 

Hard to use a club head without adding a shaft to it ?

 

Would he be in breach if he used it to drink out of ? :D

[bladehunter]

That I could buy. But that's not the reasoning or part of the rule given by the officials.

 

That's exactly the reasoning the rules official gave in that article.

 

"[The club] cannot be assembled on the golf course. His caddie was told that when he asked one of our officials. So he left it there on the tee, and the walking scorer picked it up and took it on the golf course, and Harold and the caddie were aware of this. So 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."

 

At no point in that article does the official say that the penalty was because the scorer was carrying the shaft around the course.

 

So you’re saying that it’s not the waking scorers fault , it’s theirs ( I’m assuming caddie or agent assembled it ) for putting it together on the course ?

 

I suppose I kind of see that. His out being to break the shaft over someone’s head and throw it away. Lol.

 

So it’s the scorer who errored first. Then the player for hitting a shot ? The official and caddie seem to be in the clear as they had a conversation and that’s why he left it on the tee.

 

Now it boils down to is it inside the spirit of the rule to penalize him for a volunteers interference?

[davep043]

What I find interesting is that this particular rule is something like 10 years old, going back to the beginning days of adjustable clubheads. I certainly don't remember it ever being violated before, does anyone else?

 

And in reading this, I believe that assembly on the course is acceptable.

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.

 

So its the combination of the shaft being carried by the walking scorer, the caddie and HV being aware that the scorer had the shaft, and the eventual assembly and use. But reading this bit, I wonder if the official explained the rule as clearly as he should have.:

Well, he couldn't take that shaft with him on the golf course. [The club] cannot be assembled on the golf course. His caddie was told that when he asked one of our officials. So he left it there on the tee, and the walking scorer picked it up and took it on the golf course, and Harold and the caddie were aware of this.

Its interesting, this rule doesn't specify when the breach occurs. Is it as soon as he puts the "14th club" in his bag, intending to play it when appropriate, or is it only when the club is used? Never mind, 4.1b(1)/4 says the breach occurs when the player makes his next stroke, once the added club is in his possession. That clarifies the official, who said as soon as he assembled it he had breached the rule, or was going to breach the rule if he hit another shot.

[bladehunter]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

I'd say, according to the Rule, only if he USES it.

 

Yes ? Or do you disagree ?

 

 

edited to add - darn it, I shoulda know somebody woulda caught it by the time I saw it. :taunt:

 

I love you bud. But she’s quicker than you and I put together.

[HitEmTrue]

Hard to use a club head without adding a shaft to it ?

 

Would he be in breach if he used it to drink out of ? :D

 

I had missed the interpretation 4.1b(1)/4 (Club Is Considered Added When Next Stroke Made) that Dave just referred to.

[HitEmTrue]

What I find interesting is that this particular rule is something like 10 years old, going back to the beginning days of adjustable clubheads. I certainly don't remember it ever being violated before, does anyone else?

 

And in reading this, I believe that assembly on the course is acceptable.

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.

 

Ah, yes. That interpretation. So, the rules official is wrong?

 

< edit > It still could be a breach because of the club shaft being carried FOR the player. Methinks the rules official was focusing on the wrong details.

[deadsolid...shank]

What I find interesting is that this particular rule is something like 10 years old, going back to the beginning days of adjustable clubheads. I certainly don't remember it ever being violated before, does anyone else?

 

And in reading this, I believe that assembly on the course is acceptable.

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.

 

Ah, yes. That interpretation. So, the rules official is wrong?

 

< edit > It still could be a breach because of the club shaft being carried FOR the player. Methinks the rules official was focusing on the wrong details.

 

Which circles us back to what Thinking Plus asked, is it carried FOR the player if the player doesn’t know? I would guess technically it still is.

 

Just an unfortunate set of circumstances for him since he thought he was proceeding correctly.

[bladehunter]

lol. Wow. My head hurts

[davep043]

What I find interesting is that this particular rule is something like 10 years old, going back to the beginning days of adjustable clubheads. I certainly don't remember it ever being violated before, does anyone else?

 

And in reading this, I believe that assembly on the course is acceptable.

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.

 

Ah, yes. That interpretation. So, the rules official is wrong?

 

< edit > It still could be a breach because of the club shaft being carried FOR the player. Methinks the rules official was focusing on the wrong details.

 

Which circles us back to what Thinking Plus asked, is it carried FOR the player if the player doesn’t know? I would guess technically it still is.

 

Just an unfortunate set of circumstances for him since he thought he was proceeding correctly.

I agree, it IS unfortunate. We'll never know exactly what was said. If the official said "You can't take the shaft with you", HV might have reasonably concluded that it was OK if someone other than he or his caddie carried the shaft. The official interviewed indicated that HV and the caddie both knew the shaft was being carried by the scorer. I'd hope that if the official noticed the scorer pick up the shaft, he'd have said "You can't carry the shaft along with the group either," but if he official had moved on, he probably wouldn't have noticed. It sounds like one of those things where HV got a correct answer, but not a totally complete answer.

[nsxguy]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

I'd say, according to the Rule, only if he USES it.

 

Yes ? Or do you disagree ?

 

 

edited to add - darn it, I shoulda know somebody woulda caught it by the time I saw it. :taunt:

 

I love you bud. But she's quicker than you and I put together.

 

I've learned aloooooong time ago that females are quicker than males !!! They just LET us think we're smarter. :)

[Mr. Bean]

Nsx. Indulge me.

 

 

Say I'm a betting man. ( I'm not ). But let's say yes. And I've bet against Rory to win the grand slam at Augusta this year. Say I decide to arrive with an m5 driver head in my pocket. Wait until the 5th hole and then announce on Twitter that I'm " carrying an extra driver head for Rory ... in case he needs it ". Is Rory in breach ?

 

 

I'd say, according to the Rule, only if he USES it.

 

Yes ? Or do you disagree ?

 

 

edited to add - darn it, I shoulda know somebody woulda caught it by the time I saw it. :taunt:

 

I love you bud. But she's quicker than you and I put together.

 

I've learned aloooooong time ago that females are quicker than males !!! They just LET us think we're smarter. :)

 

I thought it is the other way round. Males are quicker but females only let us make to believe they came first...