|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
THE PRESIDENTS CUPOctober 9, 2015Mark RussellSongdo IBD, Incheon City, Korea ALEX URBAN: Thank you, everyone. We are here with Mark Russell, Vice President of Rules and Competition for the PGA TOUR. He will read a brief statement about the rules situation with Phil Mickelson on the 7th hole today and then we'll take some questions. MARK RUSSELL: We've done a statement here that I think is by far going to be the easiest thing to do, because we have to give it to you piece by piece. But regarding of the breach of the one-ball condition by Phil Mickelson in the 2015 Presidents Cup, there's several components to the situation, which I'd like to explain piece by piece. The One-Ball Condition is in effect for the fourballs of single matches during The Presidents Cup. The condition is not in effect for the foursome matches, okay. On the 7th tee, Phil Mickelson put a different type of ball into play than that which he had been playing earlier in the round. When he did this, he breached the One-Ball Condition. In this situation, the penalty for breach of this condition is a one-hole adjustment to the state of the match. This means that at the conclusion of the 7th hole, whatever the outcome of the hole may be, the state of the match is adjusted by one hole. In this case, the USA side lost the 7th hole, making the International side 1-up through the 7th hole. At this point, the adjustment penalty of one hole is applied for the breach of the One-Ball Condition, resulting in the International side being 2-up through seven holes. When the breach was first brought to the attention of the Match Committee, the walking referee consulted with the committee on site as to the proper ruling. After brief discussion, the committee advised the walking referee incorrectly; that Phil was disqualified from the hole. Thus, Phil picked up his ball after his tee shot and did not complete the 7th hole. Under the Rules, he could have continued play on the 7th hole. Okay. I accept total responsibility for that mistake. Over the next few minutes, the committee realized that it had incorrectly advised Phil. Under discussion 34-2/6 of the Rules of Golf, the committee is not allowed to have Phil go back and play in an attempt to correct the error. This is because once any player in the match plays a subsequent stroke, allowing a correction could potentially undermine the strategy already employed by both sides in the match in completing the hole. On the 8th tee, both sides in the match were advised of the correct ruling, and the match continues from that point. Q. I've got a couple things. One who, is the referee of that match? MARK RUSSELL: It was Gary Young, PGA TOUR staff. Q. When you suggested that he communicate back to the committee, who was in the deliberations on this ruling? MARK RUSSELL: Well, everyone on the committee. He put it on the radio, and instantly I said, "Player is disqualified from the hole for that breach." And I asked, "Is everyone in agreement with that?" I got several "yes." And then after, a few minutes, we started thinking about it. I said, Well, wait a minute, this might not be exactly right. Maybe he continued to play the hole. But one of the other players had already played; by decision, you can't correct it at that time. Q. A lot of reference but no numbers with regards to exact rules. Is that something you can supply to us like exactly; because we're in fourball match play, the numbers, everything is completely different than if you're playing stroke play? MARK RUSSELL: Well, exactly. Q. So is there a way -- MARK RUSSELL: We can get that information to you. You know, we just want to explain to you in sequence what happened. Phil made the mistake of violating the One-Ball Condition, and we made the mistake of not telling him he could continue to play the hole. Once he violated the One-Ball Condition, an adjustment had to be made. Q. One last thing. Under the Conditions of Competition between the captains, do they have the ability to correct a wrong like this? MARK RUSSELL: I don't understand what you're saying. Q. If the two captains thought for the betterment of the competition -- MARK RUSSELL: They couldn't go against the Rules of the game. And, you know, I have talked to both captains together about this situation. Q. If Phil had been allowed to play the hole correctly, as you say, would he have played -- would Phil have -- if Phil would -- had Phil -- if he had played on, as you said he should have been allowed to, would he have played the same ball? MARK RUSSELL: He could have. Or he could replace it with the correct ball. Violation is already made. Q. So if he played the whole hole with a ball that he wasn't allowed to play with -- and he just got a birdie and made one hole -- MARK RUSSELL: But the adjustment would have had to have been made. Q. Yeah, but he could have got birdie, they could have only -- they would have halved the hole. He'd have played with the wrong ball and then lost one hole -- MARK RUSSELL: That's correct. Q. Not quite understanding the logic. MARK RUSSELL: Well, they lost the hole, and then because of the violation of One-Ball Condition -- Q. So he could play the hole, but with the ball he's now allowed to play with and birdie and halve the hole -- how does that work? MARK RUSSELL: But the conditions -- he had violated the One-Ball Condition so it was going to be an adjustment after that hole no matter what the situation. Q. But what I'm saying is you would have allowed him to play on with, in effect, the original ball and maybe birdie the hole and halve it. How does that work? The rule doesn't seem to apply. MARK RUSSELL: He's already been penalized, basically, because he's there's going to be an adjustment. Q. But if he is an advantage with the type of ball -- MARK RUSSELL: I can't, you know, speak to the Rules -- it's complicated in match play -- Q. So now does this mean that we can't end the matches early because if the team -- the other team might play a wrong ball and lose the next hole twice? MARK RUSSELL: You know, once the condition was violated, the hole is going to be adjusted. Q. So it could be 2-up and one to play, but the match ends there because they have won 2-1. But if they wouldn't have played 18 and their opponents won the hole, and they violated the rule and you've got a one-hole adjustment -- do you see what I mean? MARK RUSSELL: One hole adjustment, yeah. Q. So the match could end up all-square, even though they were 2-1 up. MARK RUSSELL: (Nodding). Q. Why isn't the hole just over right away if he just says, I messed up, there's a penalty, you guys win the hole. MARK RUSSELL: Well, his partner continues to play. Match play is a different situation. Q. Simply because it's match play, they are still playing out a hole, and then the additional -- the penalty is the extra hole -- MARK RUSSELL: Yes. Q. -- basically. MARK RUSSELL: That's correct. The adjustment, is referred to in the Rules. Q. In all your years as a rules official, can you remember a similar scenario where a team has lost a hole and then had an adjustment where they lost another hole; so basically, losing two holes in one hole? MARK RUSSELL: I can't -- we don't play fourball match play very often. I can't. I can't. You know, it's a strange situation. But we sat down as a committee and we figured it out. And we put this statement together hoping that it explains the sequence of things that happened and hopefully you can take a look at that and break it down and decipher exactly what happened, explain it to the public. ALEX URBAN: Thank you, everybody. FastScripts Transcript by ASAP Sports   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About ASAP Sports •
FastScripts Archive •
Recent Interviews •
Captioning •
Upcoming Events •
Contact Us
FastScripts | Events Covered | Our Clients | Other Services | ASAP in the News | Site Map | Job Opportunities | Links |
|
ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297
|