Connect with us

Sports

‘Have you ever seen this?’ Rules needed after Tour pro’s ball falls in hole

Published

on

The volunteers on the right side of TPC Sawgrass’ 13th hole? When it happened, they said they saw it coming. 

“I called it,” one said. 

“I called it!”

Then there was the rules official. She’d never seen what befell Kevin Roy during Sunday’s final round of the Players Championship. Roy had asked her: “Have you ever seen this?” — and she said simply:

Advertisement

“Never.” 

In the end, all of it cost Roy a stroke, and he bogeyed the hole on his way to finishing his round with a 3-over 75 and a 4-over total for the tournament. But what unfolded on 13 was curious, and video of it — which you can watch below — began circulating on Sunday afternoon. 

It started with Roy’s tee ball, which drifted right, bounced once and disappeared into a smallish hole in a tree trunk. That excited the volunteers. Roy eventually learned his fate, then laughed when he told playing partner Eric Cole what had happened. “It’s in the hole,” Roy said. “It’s in.” Cole then hit his second shot before walking over to have a look himself. 

The official then arrived. The ruling? Roy took a one-stroke penalty for an unplayable lie, then fished into the trunk hole and retrieved his ball. The broadcast announcers were shocked at it all. “Come on,” one said. “That’s unbelievable.” another said.  

Advertisement

From there, Roy hit onto the green, and he two-putted for bogey. 

Notably, if the hole had been deemed an animal hole, he still wouldn’t have been given relief, and a recent story from GOLF’s rules guy addressed that. It read this way:

My golf buddies were playing a money game. One friend hits his second shot into a hole in the trunk of a large, living tree. His ball came to rest in a burrowing animal hole — likely mole or gopher — inside the trunk. He took a free drop correctly … but was it proper? Without the burrow, the ball was definitely not playable.
—Scott Bie, Sacramento, Calif.

Alas, your pal is going to want to crawl into a hole after reading this.

Advertisement

An animal hole that qualifies as an abnormal course condition — from which you get free relief — is defined as “any hole dug in the ground by an animal, except for holes dug by animals that are also defined as loose impediments (such as worms or insects).”

Those three little words, in the ground, did him in. He gets the general penalty (two strokes in stroke play or loss of hole in match play) under Rule 14.7 for playing from a wrong place since he wasn’t allowed to lift the ball in the first place and did not replace it as required by Rule 9.4b.

Had he called it unplayable to begin with, he could have escaped with just one penalty stroke. It’s all enough to make you want to smash your tree-iron. … Sorry, couldn’t resist. What? You expected a “gopher is a varmint” reference? Puh-lease.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sports

David Benavidez team rules out one opponent for now: “He’s not ready yet”

Published

on

David Benavidez’s father and trainer, Jose Benavidez Sr, has shelved a potential world title fight while his son targets other champions at light-heavyweight and cruiserweight.

The 29-year-old will face one such fighter on May 2, when he headlines a Premier Boxing Champions card against Gilberto Ramirez at the T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas.

Having never previously fought at 200lbs, Benavidez is entering uncharted waters when he attempts to dethrone the WBO and WBA world champion.

Advertisement

But still, many believe the American’s blistering hands and tremendous engine will be too much for Ramirez, who claimed his titles by dethroning Arsen Goulamirian and Chris Billam-Smith in 2024.

Those two performances were then followed by another unanimous decision victory, this time against Yuniel Dorticos last June, with ‘Zurdo’ having now established himself as a top-flight cruiserweight.

But while Benavidez must remain focused on the task at hand, his father is already mentioning the likes of Dmitry Bivol and Artur Beterbiev as potential opponents.

It would therefore appear that, even with a win over Ramirez, the WBC world light-heavyweight champion is likely to move back down to 175lbs.

Advertisement

One fight that has effectively been ruled out is against Jai Opetaia, whose status as IBF world cruiserweight champion remains uncertain after he claimed the inaugural Zuffa title against Brandon Glanton last week.

Speaking with Sean Zittel, Benavidez Sr insisted that a clash between his son and Opetaia is perhaps one for the future, but does not warrant their attention right now.

“I think [Opetaia] gets hurt every [time] he fights; he gets hurt [by] fighters that are not even known. I think he needs a little bit more experience.

“He doesn’t have the experience that David has. I think he is going to be better in about three or four years. I see Beterbiev, Bivol and ‘Zurdo’ Ramirez [as being] more dangerous than Opetaia.

“In the future, anything’s possible. [But] I don’t see ourselves fighting for the Zuffa belt right now. Right now, our mind is on Bivol, Beterbiev and ‘Zurdo’ Ramirez.”

Advertisement

If Benavidez moves back down to 175lbs after facing Ramirez, then an undisputed showdown with Bivol could become increasingly likely.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Sports

Fans question “attorney-client privilege” following 23XI/FRM-NASCAR lawsuit court transcripts discovery

Published

on

NASCAR fans are questioning the multinational law firm’s standards after the firm’s blatant disregard for the attorney-client privilege became apparent when courtroom transcripts from the legal fight between NASCAR and two Cup Series teams, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, became public.

The antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports began in 2024 and ultimately settled in December 2025. But the court transcripts have just been released to the public, and according to Associated Press reporter Jenna Fryer, they show that former driver Bobby Hillin Jr. was a client of Latham & Watkins, the law firm representing NASCAR.

Hillin had explored buying part of Richard Childress Racing and had access to the team’s financial information during those talks.

Advertisement

“Regarding the Childress/Bobby Hillin/under NDA portion of the case… Hillin was a client of Latham & Watkins, which was the firm used by NASCAR. The attorneys knew Hillin had attempted to purchase part of RCR, as well as RCR financials, because Hillin was their client,” Fryer shared on X.

Fans reacted online, questioning whether confidential legal information had been mishandled.

“Not sure what’s more shocking: the blatant violation of attorney/client privilege, the unethical sharing of info or Bobby Hillin attempting to buy in to RCR,” a fan wrote.

@JennaFryer Not sure what’s more shocking: the blatant violation of attorney/client privilege, the unethical sharing of info or Bobby Hillin attempting to buy in to RCR.

“Isn’t that a violation of attorney-client privilege 🧐,” another fan asked.

“L&M should surrender their law licenses,” another wrote.

“Talk about an absolute eff up by Latham & Watkins. A complete disregard for Attorney/Client privilege. SMH,” yet another wrote.

During the December trial cross-examination, NASCAR attorney Christopher Yates questioned Childress about Hillin and his involvement with a potential investor group. Childress acknowledged that conversations had taken place about selling an equity stake in the team.

At the time, Childress owned roughly 60 percent of the organization, with Chartwell Investments holding the remaining 40 percent. Their talks explored selling a portion of that ownership to Hillin’s group. Still, the negotiations had been covered by a non-disclosure agreement, and Childress indicated that he did not expect those details to surface in court.

Advertisement

“This is common in large firms and they should have had a conflict wall up to prevent this. It’s inexcusable…,” a fan explained.

Meanwhile, the potential deal between Hillin and team owner Richard Childress never moved forward after an unrealistic proposal.

“They didn’t have the money” – NASCAR team owner on investment talks surfaced during antitrust lawsuit testimony

During the trial cross-examination in December of 2025, Richard Childress said that the talks ended because the group lacked the financial backing needed to finalize a deal.

Jenna Fryer shared the exchange from the courtroom with Childress, where he asked whether Hillin’s investor group had the funding to buy part of the team.

“They didn’t have the money,” Richard Childress said.

RCR, founded in 1969, is one of NASCAR’s most recognized teams, with multiple championships across the Cup Series and other national series.

Advertisement