Saucer Chip Shot Method ruled Illegal

[boogielicious]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/lepps-unorthodox-saucer-chip-shot-ruled-illegal/

Quote:

After James Lepp successfully used an unusual "saucer" chipping style to reach the finals of "Big Break: Greenbrier" last year, it appeared a new type of shot from around the green was born. Instead, several of golf's ruling bodies came together this week to announce the shot violates the Rules of Golf.

According to a report from the Vancouver Sun , the decision was reached after a meeting of a joint rules committee with representatives of the R&A;, USGA and Golf Canada.

"The rule that would be breached is Rule 14-1 that says in part the club can't be pushed, spooned or scraped," explained Dale Jackson, chairman of Golf Canada's rules committee. "Scraped here basically means you are intentionally dragging or pulling the club along the ground before it hits the ball, which is what he does."

Lepp, who in 2005 became the first Canadian male to win a Division I NCAA championship while at the University of Washington, invented the shot to combat struggles from tight lies around the greens. Derivative of a saucer pass in hockey, the stroke involves a short backswing during which the club does not leave the ground.

"We had dealt with the issue in Canada when James did his demonstration videos on his Web site and    we felt it was a conforming stroke at that time," he added. "But when he did it on the Big Break, the   USGA got a bunch of calls and they came to a different conclusion and as a result of that, the powers that be, the R&A;, the USGA and Golf Canada, who all sit on the joint rules committee, considered it and viewed it as non-conforming."

[MPtheKid]

I remember seeing this on Big Break. Honestly, I am kind of surprised that they ruled this to be illegal. I think that this type of shot represents one of the better aspects of golf, creativity. Disappointing ruling.

[Stretch]

Guess that next on the prohibited list will be using the bounce while pitching (conventionally). Because I am definitely "intentionally dragging the club along the ground" and have a complete lack of divots to prove it. You could split hairs and say well, am I deliberately doing this "before it hits the ball"? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly I'm doing all I can to ensure that if (when) I do catch the shot fat -- the club will "scrape" or "pull" along the ground rather than dig in.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Guess that next on the prohibited list will be using the bounce while pitching (conventionally). Because I am definitely "intentionally dragging the club along the ground" and have a complete lack of divots to prove it. You could split hairs and say well, am I deliberately doing this "before it hits the ball"? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly I'm doing all I can to ensure that if (when) I do catch the shot fat -- the club will "scrape" or "pull" along the ground rather than dig in.

The point being that the club never really leaves the ground in Lepp's shot, and that is a classic scrape which hasn't been legal since before any of us was born.  I don't know what Golf Canada was thinking when they allowed it in the first place.

[B-Con]

This is an effective shot? Maybe from a tight lie, but I would think any presence of grass would make dragging the clubhead at least as risky as not.

[mvmac]

Lepp says here he wants to keep the club on the ground throughout the shot.  He definitely looks like he drags the club before he hits the shot.

[newtogolf]

The problem I have with the USGA and other ruling bodies is they are waiting too long to make decisions on what is and isn't a legal golf shot.  The fact that they reviewed this stroke at one point and deemed it legal only to overturn it because Lepp won the Big Break and more people began to use it makes it seem like they are half as*ing their initial rulings.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The problem I have with the USGA and other ruling bodies is they are waiting too long to make decisions on what is and isn't a legal golf shot.  The fact that they reviewed this stroke at one point and deemed it legal only to overturn it because Lepp won the Big Break and more people began to use it makes it seem like they are half as*ing their initial rulings.

Neither the USGA nor the R&A; ever reviewed the shot.....

Golf Canada did, and in some drug induced fit of stupidity ruled it legal.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Neither the USGA nor the R&A; ever reviewed the shot.....

Golf Canada did, and in some drug induced fit of stupidity ruled it legal.

Okay, that makes more sense.  When I read the sentence, "we had dealt with the issue in Canada", I thought the "we" was all the ruling committees, not just Golf Canada.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Neither the USGA nor the R&A; ever reviewed the shot.....

Golf Canada did, and in some drug induced fit of stupidity ruled it legal.

The R&A; were asked about it about five months ago via a query on their website. They ruled it illegal then.

However they were not aware the RCGA had ruled otherwise. The RGCA were not aware of the R&A;'s ruling as it was made to an individual who posted it on a UK forum.

Early in March I asked an Asian colleague to speak to the R&A; instructors at a R&A; Rules School to be held later in March in Singapore. He was told that both the R&A; and USGA considered it to be scraping. As the RCGA were involved it was referred to the next JRC meeting.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

The problem I have with the USGA and other ruling bodies is they are waiting too long to make decisions on what is and isn't a legal golf shot.  The fact that they reviewed this stroke at one point and deemed it legal only to overturn it because Lepp won the Big Break and more people began to use it makes it seem like they are half as*ing their initial rulings.

Mark Silvers won Big Break. I ran into him at the Monday After the Masters golf tourney here in MB a few weeks ago.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The problem I have with the USGA and other ruling bodies is they are waiting too long to make decisions on what is and isn't a legal golf shot.  The fact that they reviewed this stroke at one point and deemed it legal only to overturn it because Lepp won the Big Break and more people began to use it makes it seem like they are half as*ing their initial rulings.

As you can see from later posts, there was no delay aside from putting it on the agenda for the next JRC meeting.  Not like it was so urgent that they had to call an emergency meeting for it.  The USGA and the R&A; were not even involved in the Canadian ruling, which was clearly wrong.

[turtleback]

It amazes me how every ruling is now attacked by some (ridiculous, to me) slippery slope argument that they are going to outlaw all kids of things because they ruled this thing illegal.  They aren't going to stop people from using the bounce on their pitch shots.  This has happened throughout the banned anchored putting discussion and it happened during the Tiger drop controversy.  Why people think the ruling bodies are a bunch of dolts is completely beyond me.

[zipazoid]

That's not a stroke.

[bkuehn1952]

Someone made the following comment which is an interesting look at this issue.

"I'm not sure it's that clear. The Rule states that the ball must be 'fairly struck.... and not be scraped or spooned'.... I feel that the spirit of the Rule is to limit contact time between the implement (clubhead) and the ball so as to avoid unfair maneuvering of the ball while in contact with the clubface. James Lepp doesn't scrape the ball, he hits the ball after his club scrapes the ground. The ball's contact time with the clubface is no more than a conventional chipping stroke. I think that if he put the club immediately behind the ball and scraped the ground, with the ball 'riding' the club face whilst the scraping motion continued, that it would meet the circumstances of 'scraping' the ball as the Rule was intended to define and prohibit.

That's an issue with Rules interpretations when there's so little information. The way I read the Rule, it's one or the other, A or B. A ball is either struck (A) or it's not struck (B). One is acute and brief (A) and one is prolonged and manipulative (B). Examples of B include spooning, scraping, pushing, all of which (again, the way I read the Rule) are occurring to the ball while the club is in contact with it. There is no mention of activity prior to contact. The way I look at it, whatever happens before Mr. Lepp's club makes contact with the ball is irrelevant as it relates to this specific Rule and at the exact moment of contact, his strike on the ball is identical to a conventional chipping strike/hit and does not violate rule 14-1. Now, if they want to add additional verbiage to that Rule stating that the delivery method of the club prior to the moment of contact must not involve scraping of the ground, that's another (once more, in my opinion) issue completely."

I certainly think that the "saucer shot" doesn't look like golf and I have no problem with that style being prohibited.  Still, the points raised above are well presented.

[zipazoid]

'Scraping', to me, that's what that motion looks like. To 'Spoon' it would be to put the club directly behind the ball and sort of flip the club with the ball resting on it.

Either one ain't a stroke.

Aside from that, I don't see how that method could work in rough or in any situation where the grass is not uniform behind the ball for a foot or so. This is destined to the same scrap heap as Snead's croquet putting style.

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Neither the USGA nor the R&A; ever reviewed the shot.....

Golf Canada did, and in some drug induced fit of stupidity ruled it legal.

Hate to be stereotypical, but wouldn't it be a "Molson" induced fit?

[albatross]

That looks like such a hard shot to be consistent with. All I need is another motion added to my swing IMO, annoying looking shot and not something that would be helpful anyway.