LMAO how is this not the most liked comment 🤣

Lol Bubba Watson😂

@@lrn_news9171bryson

That’s a free drop.

yeah very rude

Break

Koepka had a wrist injury in 2021 and was concerned about hurting his wrist again

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fWd6doxrppuWk2w.html&ab_channel=RyderCup

Garcia is a Spanish headcase who's a joke anyway, Sergio doesn't know how to put his pants properly anymore. Berger isn't going to say anything useful at all. So Koepka just made alot of diva points. 5 majors for BK, fuck that's tight.

It wasn't a bank. It looks like there is a sprinkler head/drain/some impediment in front of him.

You clearly can’t comprehend what they’re saying. Real golfers take divots after the ball nit before the ball like you do.

@@MOREHOCKEY okay how does that change anything about what he said

@@timr1627 the ball was closely located next to a drain, which Koepka was arguing would fall under rule 16 for relief from abnormal course conditions. He was saying there was a chance he would hit the drain on his follow through. Even Sergio agreed with him. The lie wasn’t bad. In fact, for is being in fescue, it was pretty good. They weren’t asking for relief because of a bad lie.

@@timr1627 lol stick to your day job bud.

Pros don’t get freebies often at all. Bad take. Also, if the tournament is important enough he should take time to think about it.

He was absolutely in the right for arguing his case. He was just not able to convince the referee that the shot he was trying to make would have interference from the object.

He should have hit the fairway bro

it was alternate shot ya dunce@@danielx3972

He did. He was in the right.

They were arguing that attempting the shot could lead to injury

There was an imbedded water drain pipe about 3 inches in front of the ball in the direction he would have had to swing to advance the ball towards the green. Rule 16.1b permits relief from such abnormal course impediments in that situation. Even Sergio Garcia, his competitor in that match, came over and looked at it and thought he should have been given relief due to possible injury on a swing. Ref was wrong and was a clown for not permitting it. Maybe you should look at the rules, and you would understand what he was asking for. Apparently though that was expecting too much of you and the other clueless clowns, who liked your post. 🙂

It's not so much that it is a difficult lie. It's the fact that there is a drainage pipe sticking out of the ground a couple of inches ahead of where the ball lies, and Brooks argues that he's going to hit it in his followthrough. Now obviously from that lie, anyone would attempt to get a free relief, and a chance to drop it in the stort stuff, and if the drain does indeed interfere with his intended swing, he can get free relief. This video only shows the interaction with the senior referee, denying him relief, but another ref had just denied him relief before, and then granted Brooks and Daniel a second opinion. Maybe Brooks did end up glancing the pipe. Maybe it was deliberate to prove a point, but thats just speculations. Regardless - when 2 referees have said no, it's a no.

That there is only free relief where there is interference by an abnormal course condition for a reasonable stroke.

​@@Robert-Bobby-Rob its in every professional sport(flopping being most notable), im not sure if youre blah blahing for the obviousness of the comment but youre literally on youtube right now

@@Robert-Bobby-Rob youre acting like an ass to the most generic youtube comment

@Robert-Bobby-Rob and now you just delete your comments

LUXURY! I played a course once where the greens looked like that.

the lawsuit would've been filed before he made it to the green

He'd have built sandcastles. 😁

Maybe Brooks should do that to get what he deserves

Foot wedge

Woulda said ok thanks I'm moving it anyway lol

The first referee who denied relief is from the States, the second referee who also denied relief is from England.

but over

Because Koepka is the player, that's why.

​@FastZL1Convertible Imo, Bruce was discussing. Berger was in argument territory.

@@CrazyAboutVinylRecords Koepka was one of two players involved. It was Berger's drive that put the ball there dummy. They were both involved as a team. Clear as mud? 🙂

Seve was a sorcerer.

@@rocketamerica2450 You described Seve perfectly.

@mpsymonds1 Thanks, Wizard wasn't going to cover it.

Even Sergio Garcia thought he should have been given relief and he came over and looked at it himself.

and take the penalty

Silly

@@integrito3323 americanally silly

I do too... I just start complaining and whining like those soccer floppers! if we can take advantage of the game, why the f*ck not? It's basically legal cheating and I'm all for legal Cheating in the gentleman's sport of golf! Builds character and trustworthiness. Play it as it lies? please! For guys like you and I, it's more like "get a free drop or play it as I whine!" Am I right? We take the badge of "The Complaining golfer soyboy" with an honor... Because even though we still lose, this gives us a better chance & it's legal....well, maybe not but it's a gray area. I've gotten so good at trying to weasel my way out of any poor lie I get, that I only slow down the game a few minutes.. and I'm kind of a dick because I still complain about guys who take an extra few seconds to hit their shot.

way of the fair

You don't have to play out forward if he played out sideways then his low point wouldn't have been an issue.

@@dsh301 But... He's entitled to hit it the direction he would hit it without the obstruction and if it interferes, take a few drop.

@SouthernUtahGolfAcademy But not for the quoted rule if for instance it was a tree in front he would have to find a different direction to get a swing.

@@dsh301 Agreed. But a tree is a natural obstruction. This was a drain area that you would be given relief from if it interferes with your stance or swing.

There's a difference between the ruling on a natural obstruction and unnatural obstruction. If you assume what was in front of Brooks was something like a concrete water fountain and it was in his follow-through, he would be allowed to move the ball without penalty. The referee was contending that Brooks' natural follow through would not have hit that drain area. Brooks' contention was that it was and if you watch the swing he was still making contact with the ground past that drain area.

Well...I hope you don't watch baseball.

@@UpdogGolf different sports, different etiquette.

the official was an idiot

He's not pressuring him, what are you talking about? lol he was making his case and asked for a second opinion.

@@lrn_news9171 If I end up breaking my hand, knee, whatever, it's coming back on you, bro. I would say that's pressuring the official. All three of those stooges are gone to the LIV tour anyways.

That is not why the Rule 16.1b is in place Einstein. And even Sergio Garcia, one of his competitors in that match came over and looked at it and thought he should have been given relief. Maybe it was expecting too much of a clueless clown like you to actually learn the rule he was seeking relief under due to your "busy" schedule. 🙂

The putt would have been much longer though. 🤪

Berger hit it there

I always try but !🤗

John my friend you’re wasting time here on the internet. You really should be in a think tank somewhere changing the world.

If you don’t want to die, than just live, idiot.

@@dellgriffen8318😂

No. There was an imbedded water drain in the ground a few inches in front of his ball directly in his swing path to hit the ball towards the green. Rule 16.1b permits relief from such abnormal impediments to prevent injury to a player on his follow through (really a rule that impacts players, who take their divot on an iron shot after the ball just as Koepka and all other pros do). That is what he wanted relief from because he knew his follow through divot might hit that drain and injure himself. Sergio Garcia, his competitor in that match, came over and looked at it and even he nodded and said he thought he should have been given relief. The washout they were talking about was the washout from the water drain, and they were asking the ref to take a look at it and how close his ball was to the drain's edge. The ref tried to claim that because of the topography of where the ball lied there was no chance his follow through would hit the drain, but even Garcia did not think that was true.

Although he’s Australian….

except the video shows he was wrong

Did he sleep with your wife or something? You sound hurt

In his position I would've done the same, I'd try to get relief every chance I get, at least, when I think I have a chance to get one, why the fuck not?

@@lrn_news9171 Sergio Garcia, one of his competitors in that match came over and looked at it and even he thought Koepka should have been given relief due to the water drain.

@@rcg9573 Yes I see that in the other video that shows the entire exchange

Yeah, and McElroy seemed to have no issues with Nike making all its products in mainland China sweatshops where child age workers are abused on a daily basis 365 days a year to create the products that pay for his lifetime sponsorship deal with them. Ditto for Woods, but no big deal. 🙂

What is it that you would like help with?

As a ref you would know the rule he should (or should not) get free relief from. -It would be 16.1b. In this case it was deemed that he was not entitled to free relief. But as a referee you are there to help the players in rules situations. Not to challenge their knowledge of the rules.

Not a sportsman I see

Brooks hit the obstruction he was worried about hitting so you and the ref are empirically wrong

Poor brook

Just hit the ball

In his position I would've done the same, I'd try to get relief every chance I get, at least, when I think I have a chance to get one, why the fuck not?

@lrn_news9171 For sure, but if you can't be respectful to officials and their decision, you look like such a rube. I can't believe nobody said jack shit about it, Berger is acting like he's 10 feet tall. Segio the sycophant laughing away. Three cool dudes who now are on the LIV tour. Still not looking good.

The fact that the ref got the decision wrong is pathetic. Announcers clearly pointed out he was pretty much swinging through the object because the ref wouldn’t give him the relief he should’ve been entitled to. Get your eyes checked moron.

If you watch the entire exchange, even Sergio Garcia was agreeing with Koepka and Berger, even if he was playing against them lol There's another video of the whole exchange on youtube

They are playing partners in a foursome. They have an equal say. It might be Brook's shot, but it's their ball, what happens when Brooks hits the ball will certainly affect Bergers shot. They are making their case but are unable to convince the referee to get free relief. Turns out the referee was right all along. No injury came to Brooks from making the shot, nor did the drain actually affect the outcome of the shot.

@@Ruinsthename Koepka was also correct that he was going to hit that turf or hill of grass. Koepka was probably legitimately concerned as he was plagued with injuries including a wrist injury that year. You could say they were both correct about something lol

Berger had hit the shot to put the ball there genius and he was part of the pairing with Koepka dummy. And Sergio Garcia, a competitor of theirs in that match came over and took a look at it and even he thought they should have been given relief from that imbedded water drainage pipe.

Exactly.

I couldn't see what they were even talking about. What were they referring to in this vid that he was gonna hit?

@@AbleAnderson Drainage

Nonsense

No they weren't. This clump of grass and the wash out is part of the course.

@@rugby4lifenone615 Well even Sergio who was the opponent was agreeing with Koepka and Berger lol

He didn't.

Brooks did not hit it there, Berger did. Next idiot step up. 🙂

It was not clear. Sergio Garcia one of his competitors in that match came over and looked at it and even he thought Koepka should have been given relief. Just because Koepka made a swing and did not get injured does not make the refs ruling correct.

@@rcg9573 The referees ruling is the referees ruling. It doesn't really matter who considers the ruling incorrect. And while Garcia and Koepka may disagree, they are not the official.