BuiltTooLong
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 1,746
Maybe if Nate hadn't thrown a driver on a 260' hole, it wouldnt have skipped OB. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Dickerson's rollaway OB on hole 18 at Ledgestone this summer, which allowed Sexton to walk the win in, or this railroad tie kerfluffle, which cost Nate 2 strokes? Either way, it's good that they each ended up the beneficiary once.
Going out of bounds cost Sexton one stroke, not a railroad tie (kerfuffle or not). He knew the gap was there. It has been demonstrated that the tie was missing all tournament. Arguments that the tie would have kept him inbounds or the call was incorrect are interwebz fodder, nothing more. This out of bounds, was no more or less fair, than any of the abundant OB all over the course.
Technically, since there was a gap in the "island" the entire tournament, with no defined line connecting the ties in the gap, there was no island the entire tournament. So I agree..if I'm going to push for Nate's disc to be in bounds, alot of other player's scores would need to be adjusted as well. TD accountability is just as important (if not more) as player accountability.
Technically, since there was a gap in the "island" the entire tournament, with no defined line connecting the ties in the gap, there was no island the entire tournament. So I agree..if I'm going to push for Nate's disc to be in bounds, alot of other player's scores would need to be adjusted as well. TD accountability is just as important (if not more) as player accountability.
No offense, but this argument is foolish. The design of the hole was clear. The execution was not but that should not negate the entire design of the hole.
I would argue the execution wasn't at all unclear unless someone is trying to be willfully obtuse in examining or interpretation... which seems to also be the norm in reading rules. This could have been taken care of but certainly doesn't change the 100% obvious intent of the hole design. 100% obvious and questioning that is as I said willfully obtuse or just plain stupid.
The execution was poor in that the railroad tie was allowed to be missing in the first place. Or that a line wasn't painted in its absence. That's an oversight by the tournament crew, but certainly not one that renders the entire design/intent of the hole moot.
Seems to me the only unanswered question is where is the tie? If it was there when the course was prepped (so no one saw need to paint a line) and only moved for a mower, shouldn't it be right there? I didn't see any sign of it sitting off to the side somewhere.
From the pics provided by robdeforge, it appears that the railroad ties are stacked two high for portions of the wall, and as high as four ties high for other portions of the wall. I expect that the persons tasked with mowing the grass simply picked up the tie and added it to a layer of the existing wall. That would be the sensible solution to get it out of the way. So, the missing tie is hiding in plain sight on the wall.
I would argue the execution wasn't at all unclear unless someone is trying to be willfully obtuse in examining or interpretation...