Ball moving

[turtleback]

Can you rules gurus talk a little about the ball moving non-penalty on Scott?  It was blindingly obvious that ESPN didn't have a clue and the R&A; rules official didn't say much that helped matters any.  The worst was when they put up the graphic on the new interpretation since that only applies when the ball has been addressed.  Although Azinger claimed that Scott had grounded his club behind the ball when he obviously hadn't.  So, what are the parameters in a situation like this, where practice swings have been taken, the ball has not been addressed, the player has walked away from the ball, and THEN the ball moves?

Thanks.

[jmorg19]

The general gist I got from it was that since he took his practice swings and walked away from the ball, there was no penalty. They said the delay between the swings and the ball moving was so great that he didn't cause the ball to move. Not sure if this is the proper way to call this situation, but that was my understanding. I thought since he addressed the ball with practice swings, any ball movement from then on was a penalty.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by jmorg19

The general gist I got from it was that since he took his practice swings and walked away from the ball, there was no penalty. They said the delay between the swings and the ball moving was so great that he didn't cause the ball to move. Not sure if this is the proper way to call this situation, but that was my understanding. I thought since he addressed the ball with practice swings, any ball movement from then on was a penalty.

Taking practice swings is not addressing the ball.

Addressing the ball involves grounding the club immediately behind or in front of the ball. Which he didn't do.

The referee determined that he had not caused the ball to move so there was no penalty.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Can you rules gurus talk a little about the ball moving non-penalty on Scott?  It was blindingly obvious that ESPN didn't have a clue and the R&A; rules official didn't say much that helped matters any.  The worst was when they put up the graphic on the new interpretation since that only applies when the ball has been addressed.  Although Azinger claimed that Scott had grounded his club behind the ball when he obviously hadn't.  So, what are the parameters in a situation like this, where practice swings have been taken, the ball has not been addressed, the player has walked away from the ball, and THEN the ball moves?

Thanks.

My 2 cents.  The player has to cause the ball to move for there to be a penalty.  He never grounded his club so.... did he do anything else to cause it to move.  Sometimes practice swings near a ball can cause a ball to move, especially if it's on a slope.  In this case, it was determined that they did not because, as Rulesman said, too much time had elapsed from the practice swings to when the ball actually moved.

Rulesman has also given the correct definition for grounding your club.

If he had grounded his club and the ball had then moved, he would have been deemed to have caused the ball to move.  Even if he had stepped away after grounding the club.  The new rule does not apply unless it was determined that wind had caused the ball to move after he had grounded his club.  If that were the case, no penalty.  If gravity had caused the ball to move after he had grounded his club, he would still be in breach of Rule18.  Because he had not grounded his club, none of this applied.

Also, it has been my experience that most golf announcers, including ex players,  have very little understanding of the rules of golf and often do more harm than good when trying to explain a rules situation to the audience.    Some of the Golf Channel announcers are the worst.

[jmorg19]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Taking practice swings is not addressing the ball.

Addressing the ball involves grounding the club immediately behind or in front of the ball. Which he didn't do.

The referee determined that he had not caused the ball to move so there was no penalty.

They said on TV that he did. That's what I was going off of. They said he took practice swings, addressed, pulled away and walked to look at the green. I wasn't really watching too carefully so I didn't see if he actually addressed or not. My mistake

[Rulesman]

I gather the EPSN commentators got a lot of 'rulings' wrong.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

I gather the EPSN commentators got a lot of 'rulings' wrong.

I was watching BBC and I think there was a R&A; person who was talking something about distance around the ball. I was not paying enough attention but what was that about?

[reedf]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

I gather the EPSN commentators got a lot of 'rulings' wrong.

These are the same commentators that just couldnt understand why the players weren't taking an unplayable lie in the pot bunkers and dropping in the grass!

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by luu5

I was watching BBC and I think there was a R&A; person who was talking something about distance around the ball. I was not paying enough attention but what was that about?

That was Ian Pattinson, a former Chairman of the R&A; Rules Committee, who was saying the practise swings were too far away to have caused the ball to move.

[Motley01]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

I gather the EPSN commentators got a lot of 'rulings' wrong.

LOL at ESPN is a joke for golf. They have no clue about anything. They couldn't even pronounce the names of several players either.

Mike Tirico is the most boring commentator on planet earth.

How in the world did ESPN even get the contracts for the US Open and The Open, is beyond me....

[jmorg19]

Originally Posted by Motley01

LOL at ESPN is a joke for golf. They have no clue about anything. They couldn't even pronounce the names of several players either.

Mike Tirico is the most boring commentator on planet earth.

How in the world did ESPN even get the contracts for the US Open and The Open, is beyond me....

Money. Lots and lots of money.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by jmorg19

Money. Lots and lots of money.

don't forget that its also the most recognizable, most wide reaching sports network on the planet :)

[TXRains]

Originally Posted by Motley01

LOL at ESPN is a joke for golf. They have no clue about anything. They couldn't even pronounce the names of several players either.

Mike Tirico is the most boring commentator on planet earth.

How in the world did ESPN even get the contracts for the US Open and The Open, is beyond me....

I will say that some of the coverage was lacking, but I love Scott Van Pelt during golf coverage. Maybe because he brings an "everyman" quality to it. He also got his start at the Golf Channel, so he knows his stuff. In fact, he admits in the ESPN book that his relationship with Tiger was a big selling point for ESPN when they hired him.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by reedf

These are the same commentators that just couldnt understand why the players weren't taking an unplayable lie in the pot bunkers and dropping in the grass!

Give him a bit of slack here. He was confusing the rule from the days earlier in the week regarding relief from water in the bunker. Relief was allowed without penalty within the bunker or outside the bunker with one stroke penalty.

And I never heard anyone say that Scott had addressed his ball. They were saying he could have been deemed to cause the ball to move without addressing the ball. I Paul A was saying he had been assessed a penalty for the same thing -- not addressing the ball but taking practice swings.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Give him a bit of slack here. He was confusing the rule from the days earlier in the week regarding relief from water in the bunker. Relief was allowed without penalty within the bunker or outside the bunker with one stroke penalty.

I'm not going to give him any slack for that.  They should know the difference.  Just like I am not going to give him any slack for saying that Snedeker found his ball but chose to play his provisional.  He WAS a professional golfer and he IS a profession golf announcer and there is NO excuse for making such elementary rules mistakes.

[Johanna]

Here's an interesting bit, copied from the R&A; Website:

Ian Pattinson, Rules of Golf advisor for the BBC this year, talks about his first few days on the job.

Every Referee on the course (there are 72 from 18 countries) keeps a record of the time taken by his or her group for each hole, the cumulative time for the round (against a ‘time par’) and any rulings given. Some referees also keep a score, although there is no requirement to do this. At the end of each round the Referees return their rules decisions record to David Rickman (Director of Rules and Equipment Standards for The R&A;) and there is a short de-briefing so that any issues or trends that might be relevant to the day – or might be helpful in the planning for the next day — can be discussed.

Each evening after play ends, Shona McRae of The R&A;’s Rules team analyses the rules decisions and prepares a summary to help the referees know what to look out for the next day. First thing each day, I collect a copy of this from the Rules office to give me a heads up.

In the first round, about a quarter of the 56 walking referees gave no rulings. The analysis shows that the rest gave a wide selection of other rulings. Free drops away from Temporary Immovable Obstructions (e.g. TV towers, grandstands etc) were taken by less than ten golfers. The summary for round two tells a different story, with nearly 40 rulings given for casual water – many in bunkers.

There has been a lot of interest in the water in the bunkers. We take the view that the Championship can properly be played under the Rules of Golf and that where there is casual water in bunkers there is somewhere in the sand to drop without penalty which is not nearer the hole. So far I haven’t heard of anyone having to drop outside a bunker under a one stroke penalty.

Another tell-tale sign of the benign conditions has been the fact that in two days, 156 golfers have played 5,616 holes and there have been less than twenty unplayable balls. As I am a bit of a hoarder of rules stuff, I have the records of the rulings going back to the 1995 Open and can see that unplayable balls were easily the most often “popular” rulings given in both the ’96 and ’01 Lytham Opens.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I'm not going to give him any slack for that.  They should know the difference.  Just like I am not going to give him any slack for saying that Snedeker found his ball but chose to play his provisional.  He WAS a professional golfer and he IS a profession golf announcer and there is NO excuse for making such elementary rules mistakes.

I don't wish to get into a spitting match over if a professional announcer should get slack or not.

But, as I understood the R&A; rules, the free relief from casual water in a bunker was a decision they made during the week and not a "normal" rule. I thought I understood that the normal rule was no free relief and that they made that change because of the amount of water on the course. If my understanding that the free relief or the choice of dropping out of the bunker with penalty was a special rule, then I choose to cut the announcers SOME slack for confusing the special rule and thinking it may also apply to non-water situations.

As for the ball moving after practice swings, I think it was a judgement call that could have gone either way. If the rules official had been close enough to see what happened, I would guess he would have said Scott caused the ball to move. As it was, he was not in position to see anything and relied on the player's interpretation of the events. And either player relayed that the ball moved once seven seconds after the practice swings and then moved some more a bit over three seconds later. They both told the official that it was over ten seconds between practice swings and the ball moving because that is what they thought happened. Paul A claimed that in the same situation, he was assessed a penalty. I was glad the outcome of the event did not turn on that judgement call -- either way.

[reedf]

The casual water in the bunker is a hard written rule. I agree with you on the judgement call on the ball moving. That one can be a real bear sometimes, did the player cause the movement or not?