|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
BMW CHAMPIONSHIPSeptember 17, 2017Stephen CoxCarmel, Indiana Q. Stephen Cox, if you can just talk us through the Sergio ruling that happened there on 18 in the final round. Just explain, first of all, why he was seeking relief. STEPHEN COX: Not the ideal ruling to have with two premiere players playing prime time. I suspect, like I say, they are curious as to why the player was entitled to get relief when his ball was lying in the water hazard. We have very large structures which we call TIO or Temporary Immoveable Obstruction. Whereas the rules of golf when the player's ball lies in a water hazard would not get relief from an immovable obstruction for like a sprinkler head. The rule permits, because we like, for example there at 18, we have very large structures which are situated very close to the water hazard which ordinarily wouldn't be there, the rules allow a player to get relief when his ball lies in water hazard, albeit if he was to proceed under no penalty of free relief he would need to stay in the water hazard. Now, where Sergio's ball is lying, unfortunately, there was a rock which was prohibiting playing towards the hole. So, at that point in time after exploring the option of going opposite margin or proceeding under penalty under the water hazard rule, he felt one of his options was to play away from the hole using the rock to ricochet like the road hole at St. Andrews and introduce it back towards the flag knowing full well there was probably a bit of a catch behind the flag because you got the grandstand right behind there. He knew it wasn't going to go too far away from the hole and by doing -- by playing in that direction, it was very easy to see there was no reason why the player couldn't get the club behind the ball, being the makeup of the rock had a very flat face. So, the distance between the ball and the rock given the wedge that he was choosing to play, I saw no reason why there wasn't a chance he could ricochet off the rock and get enough elevation to get it towards the back of the green. But the dilemma for me is I have to weigh up as to whether that stroke is clearly unreasonable or clearly impractical in the circumstances. Now, before he even asked me about taking relief, I could clearly see he was genuinely considering playing this option. He went in there two, three, if not four times and discussing with his caddy whether he should take that shot on as one of his options or proceed under the water hazard rule and take opposite margin. At that point in time when he thought, well, I'm thinking about taking this shot on, at that point I'm brought in to actually make a decision as to whether this is -- whether he would be denied under the exception, one of the number of exceptions. We're talking about one of the greatest shotmakers of all time. Q. It's a judgment call. But you never underestimate the skill of the PGA TOUR player. STEPHEN COX: No. But there are situations that arise where the exceptions will apply and the player would be denied. We're talking about where we're talking -- when the player can get the club to the back of the ball they can do a lot of things with it. I've seen these ricochets take place. In this situation I felt that it wasn't completely unreasonable. So on that basis he got relief. The next thing is the relief procedure which then becomes even more awkward by the fact that he needs to drop it in the hazard. Q. On a rock. STEPHEN COX: On a rock and satisfy the rule, not only physical interference but also the temporary immovable obstruction for line of sight. For example, can't drop it within one to satisfy the entire rule. Which then got a little bit difficult to explain across to him. We got relief -- taking relief playing away from the hole in one direction and obviously once it's determined his nearest point of relief played backwards toward the hole. He dropped his ball twice, hit a rock, rolled forwards. We ended up placing. It was not exactly a fun situation to be in but one of those real wacky, bizarre situations which don't happen very often but totally within the confines of the rule and Sergio was fantastic throughout. Q. In fairness, it's taken you almost five minutes to explain the rule. Going through the process must have taken a lot longer by the time he makes his decision to go down that route. Thanks for the explanation. STEPHEN COX: You're welcome, Mark. 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
|