Saucer Chip Shot Method ruled Illegal

[Fourputt]

I see it as little more than a crutch for someone who can't figure out how to make a proper chip.  Sorry, but if you can't make the shot, then you have no business playing with the game's elite.  Figure it out or go home.  I'm just about as far from being a pro as you can be, but I can hit a chip from a tight lie without resorting to an illegal stroke modification.

[Meltdwhiskey]

I agree with bkuehn1952.  I think the word 'scraped' has the issue confused.  It sounds to me when reading the rule that it is 100% about contact.  Specifically, that contact can not be prolonged - such as pushing, spooning, or scraping the ball along the ground.  He doesn't scrape the ball along the ground. He strikes the ball with the club - The ball must be fairly struck at. The rule stated that ball must not be scraped, but does not say the ground can't be scraped.

It certainly looks funny.  And the word scraped makes it tough because he definitely scrapes the ground.  But I don't think that whomever wrote that rule - a rule about striking the ball - was trying to outlaw this kind of contact.  I think they were intending to say that you couldn't 'grab' the ball with the club and push it around.  That the contact had to be instant and the over.

That being said, if the writer of that rule saw what James is doing, he probably wouldn't have like the way it looked and would have written a rule to outlaw it.

[Rulesman]

Somewhere in the archives there will be a description of or meaning given to the term by the rules writers at the time.

The JRC will be aware of the history of the words used and their interpretation. They would not have simply applied their own interpretation.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

I agree with bkuehn1952.  I think the word 'scraped' has the issue confused.  It sounds to me when reading the rule that it is 100% about contact.  Specifically, that contact can not be prolonged - such as pushing, spooning, or scraping the ball along the ground.  He doesn't scrape the ball along the ground. He strikes the ball with the club - The ball must be fairly struck at. The rule stated that ball must not be scraped, but does not say the ground can't be scraped.

It certainly looks funny.  And the word scraped makes it tough because he definitely scrapes the ground.  But I don't think that whomever wrote that rule - a rule about striking the ball - was trying to outlaw this kind of contact.  I think they were intending to say that you couldn't 'grab' the ball with the club and push it around.  That the contact had to be instant and the over.

That being said, if the writer of that rule saw what James is doing, he probably wouldn't have like the way it looked and would have written a rule to outlaw it.

I disagree, and clearly the rulesmakers do too. Balls get "scraped" by the literal definition all the time. They get scuffed, cut, etc. too.

I think "scraping" the ball doesn't mean literally scraping the ball, but the action of "scraping" with the club.

As with the definition of the stroke that is not going to include anchoring, the rulesmakers are free to clarify the definitions of these kinds of words.

[jclark]

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.

I think this interpretation of the rule is dead on!!

[newtogolf]

I always considered scraping to mean the sole moving along the ground while in contact with the ball.  Wouldn't most fat and sand shots by this interpretation be considered scraping?

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

I agree with bkuehn1952.  I think the word 'scraped' has the issue confused.  It sounds to me when reading the rule that it is 100% about contact.  Specifically, that contact can not be prolonged - such as pushing, spooning, or scraping the ball along the ground.  He doesn't scrape the ball along the ground. He strikes the ball with the club - The ball must be fairly struck at. The rule stated that ball must not be scraped, but does not say the ground can't be scraped.

It certainly looks funny.  And the word scraped makes it tough because he definitely scrapes the ground.  But I don't think that whomever wrote that rule - a rule about striking the ball - was trying to outlaw this kind of contact.  I think they were intending to say that you couldn't 'grab' the ball with the club and push it around.  That the contact had to be instant and the over.

That being said, if the writer of that rule saw what James is doing, he probably wouldn't have like the way it looked and would have written a rule to outlaw it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclark

I think this interpretation of the rule is dead on!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I always considered scraping to mean the sole moving along the ground while in contact with the ball.  Wouldn't most fat and sand shots by this interpretation be considered scraping?

Yeah, I'm in this group too.  If the part of bkuehns post that I bolded is correct, then I interpret it exactly as all of you.  It says that the BALL must not be scraped or spooned.  To me, scraping the ball is moving it along while keeping it in contact with the clubface, and spooned is similar but more in the air.  I think of hockey ... scraping is what you are doing while just skating with the puck, and spooning is what you need to do when you hit a wrist shot or long pass and give it some loft.  In both cases, it's all about the ball having extended contact with the clubface, as opposed to it simply being "struck."

That said, I also agree with this from Erik's post:

Quote:

As with the definition of the stroke that is not going to include anchoring, the rulesmakers are free to clarify the definitions of these kinds of words.

We interpret their definitions however we want, and if they don't think that we are interpreting correctly, they reserve the right to clarify what they meant.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree, and clearly the rulesmakers do too. Balls get "scraped" by the literal definition all the time. They get scuffed, cut, etc. too.

I think "scraping" the ball doesn't mean literally scraping the ball, but the action of "scraping" with the club.

As with the definition of the stroke that is not going to include anchoring, the rulesmakers are free to clarify the definitions of these kinds of words.

I realize I said scrape the ball, but didn't mean the literal scraping or scuffing of the ball. I worded that funny.  And I agree they meant the action of scraping with the club as you wrote.  But it sounds like they meant scraping while the ball was connected to the club.  I think they lumped the word scraping in with the pushing and spooning.  Pushing and spooing imply a prolonged contact - and I think they meant for scraping to imply the same thing.

I think the spirit of that particular rule is all about contact and that it should be instant - 'struck' as they say.  And James strikes it.

That being said, I don't know if it should be legal or if some rule should be made against it.  I admire the creativity and really liked watching him apply the shot while on the show.  I 'feel' like I want it to be legal.  But that may be a little hypocrictical because I favor the anchoring ban - which is also a creative application.  But I definitely don't see that as a proper golf shot.  I would have trouble arguing arguing weather or not the saucer is a proper golf shot.  But I don't think this particular rule applies to it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

I realize I said scrape the ball, but didn't mean the literal scraping or scuffing of the ball. I worded that funny.  And I agree they meant the action of scraping with the club as you wrote.  But it sounds like they meant scraping while the ball was connected to the club.  I think they lumped the word scraping in with the pushing and spooning.  Pushing and spooing imply a prolonged contact - and I think they meant for scraping to imply the same thing.

I disagree. They wouldn't need to use three words that all mean the same thing. They likely mean them to cover different kinds of things.

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

I think the spirit of that particular rule is all about contact and that it should be instant - 'struck' as they say.  And James strikes it.

I don't think that's been established. After all, they're likely going to be banning the anchored putting method and that ball is "struck."

You could "strike" the ball like a pool cue (using the bottom of your putter, not the butt of the club) and that would be illegal too. It's clearly not just about "striking" the ball and creating "instant" contact.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't think that's been established.

It's clearly not just about "striking" the ball and creating "instant" contact.

I think it has been at least partially established.  Decision 14-1/4 states: If a ball is fairly struck at, there is only momentary contact between the clubhead and the ball or whatever intervenes between the clubhead and the ball.

Originally Posted by iacas

After all, they're likely going to be banning the anchored putting method and that ball is "struck."

That is true, but I don't think that has anything to do with this rule as it is currently written. No one is saying that the anchored method doesn't strike the ball - or that it is scraping, spooning or anything. Not that I've heard.  Today, anchor putting is actually legal under the rules. If it was not legal, someone would site it and Simpson would be out of luck. They are actually creating a rule to so that it will become illegal.  This differs in that they are saying the saucer banned by the rule now.

Originally Posted by iacas

You could "strike" the ball like a pool cue (using the bottom of your putter, not the butt of the club) and that would be illegal too.

This is a good point.  A pool style shot will definitely strike the the ball - but Decision 14-1/2 specifically addresses the pool shot and calls it a push.  Not sure it would meet Webster's definition of a push.  If you asked a hundred people if a pool player pushes the ball or if he strikes it, Idon't think you get many answers of push. But the intent in the decision is very clear - the pool shot is considered a push in golf and you can't do it.  So this would dimish, and maybe even contradict, the "momentary contact" language used in 1/4.  Maybe they should have actually written a rule about the pool stroke like they are the anchored stroke.  But to your point, it would open the door for the stroke to be a scrape.

Also, back to Decision 1/4, it states: In order to strike the ball fairly, it must be swung at with the clubhead. This would also kill the pool shot because it seems pretty easy to tell that there is no swinging motion.  It also uses 'swung' for the first time - which the actual rule doesn't - and I had not previously read.  And I think this would be the biggest argument against the stroke. In this particular decision, the problem in question is when the only backswing physically possible is 1/2 an inch.  So the rule seems to be trying to say that 1/2 an inch probably doesn't give you room to do anything but push. But the saucer doesn't suffer from any backswing length problems - so the descriptive language could be out of context.

But the cat might be out of the bag here.  Even though the word is in the decision and not the rule - and in a decision that doesn't apply to the stroke - after all, they did say swung.  And what James does is arguably not a swing. The follow through definitely is.  But leading up to the ball is swingish at best. It is obviously more of a swing that a pool shot, but maybe not a swing.  I don't think the current rule or the decision fully address what he is doing - but in reading it more carefully, I can see how somone comes down on the side of it not being a legal stroke - and how it would be a scrape. And the debate and learning more about the rule has been interesting.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't think that's been established.

It's clearly not just about "striking" the ball and creating "instant" contact.

I think it has been at least partially established.  Decision 14-1/4 states: If a ball is fairly struck at, there is only momentary contact between the clubhead and the ball or whatever intervenes between the clubhead and the ball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

After all, they're likely going to be banning the anchored putting method and that ball is "struck."

That is true, but I don't think that has anything to do with this rule as it is currently written. No one is saying that the anchored method doesn't strike the ball - or that it is scraping, spooning or anything. Not that I've heard.  Today, anchor putting is actually legal under the rules. If it was not legal, someone would site it and Simpson would be out of luck. They are actually creating a rule to so that it will become illegal.  This differs in that they are saying the saucer banned by the rule now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

You could "strike" the ball like a pool cue (using the bottom of your putter, not the butt of the club) and that would be illegal too.

This is a good point.  A pool style shot will definitely strike the the ball - but Decision 14-1/2 specifically addresses the pool shot and calls it a push.  Not sure it would meet Webster's definition of a push.  If you asked a hundred people if a pool player pushes the ball or if he strikes it, Idon't think you get many answers of push. But the intent in the decision is very clear - the pool shot is considered a push in golf and you can't do it.  So this would dimish, and maybe even contradict, the "momentary contact" language used in 1/4.  Maybe they should have actually written a rule about the pool stroke like they are the anchored stroke.  But to your point, it would open the door for the stroke to be a scrape.

Also, back to Decision 1/4, it states: In order to strike the ball fairly, it must be swung at with the clubhead. This would also kill the pool shot because it seems pretty easy to tell that there is no swinging motion.  It also uses 'swung' for the first time - which the actual rule doesn't - and I had not previously read.  And I think this would be the biggest argument against the stroke. In this particular decision, the problem in question is when the only backswing physically possible is 1/2 an inch.  So the rule seems to be trying to say that 1/2 an inch probably doesn't give you room to do anything but push. But the saucer doesn't suffer from any backswing length problems - so the descriptive language could be out of context.

But the cat might be out of the bag here.  Even though the word is in the decision and not the rule - and in a decision that doesn't apply to the stroke - after all, they did say swung.  And what James does is arguably not a swing. The follow through definitely is.  But leading up to the ball is swingish at best. It is obviously more of a swing that a pool shot, but maybe not a swing.  I don't think the current rule or the decision fully address what he is doing - but in reading it more carefully, I can see how somone comes down on the side of it not being a legal stroke - and how it would be a scrape. And the debate and learning more about the rule has been interesting.

What he does is a scrape.  I can't see how there could be any argument about it.  He scrapes the ball off the ground.  He doesn't make a swing.  It's clearly what was intended by the using term "scrape".  I don't even know why this discussion is taking place aside from the fact that there are always those who get overly excited every time the ruling bodies make a decision.  Time to quit worrying about it and play golf.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Thanks for the reprimand. I was hoping someone would let me know when it was time for me to quit worrying about something and then what to go do.  But maybe it is worth discussing – on a discussion board – dedicated to the rules of golf.  Maybe it’s interesting.

It might not be as cut and dried as you say.  Somehow Canada missed it – and the Golf Channel, the other competitors on the show, that host guy who looks kinda like Bill Hader from SNL, etc.  I think there is some grey area there. And if you don’t feel it is worth discussing, then don’t.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

Thanks for the reprimand. I was hoping someone would let me know when it was time for me to quit worrying about something and then what to go do.  But maybe it is worth discussing – on a discussion board – dedicated to the rules of golf.  Maybe it’s interesting.

It might not be as cut and dried as you say.  Somehow Canada missed it – and the Golf Channel, the other competitors on the show, that host guy who looks kinda like Bill Hader from SNL, etc.  I think there is some grey area there. And if you don’t feel it is worth discussing, then don’t.

All three groups represented in the joint rules committee have agreed that it's a scrape.  Why Canada missed it at first is, and probably will remain, a mystery.  Maybe they just didn't want to come down on a fellow Canadian.  For anyone who has made a study of the rules as I have for more than 20 years, it's quite obvious.  There are some things about the rules which do puzzle me, but this isn't one of them.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Are you really still harping on this?  I don't even know why this discussion is taking place aside from the fact that there are always those who get overly excited every time the ruling bodies make a decision. Time to quit worrying about it and play golf.

[boogielicious]

Dude, he is just responding to your comment.  Fourputt happens to be one of the forum's rules experts.  I personally value his input a lot and learn quite a bit from his comments.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Dude, he is just responding to your comment.  Fourputt happens to be one of the forum's rules experts.  I personally value his input a lot and learn quite a bit from his comments.

Me too. However these are good points:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

But maybe it is worth discussing – on a discussion board – dedicated to the rules of golf.  Maybe it’s interesting...  And if you don’t feel it is worth discussing, then don’t.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Dude, he is just responding to your comment.  Fourputt happens to be one of the forum's rules experts.  I personally value his input a lot and learn quite a bit from his comments.

Me too. However these are good points:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

But maybe it is worth discussing – on a discussion board – dedicated to the rules of golf.  Maybe it’s interesting...  And if you don’t feel it is worth discussing, then don’t.

I made the comment to him that I did because I thought that the point had been made and seconded before he ever entered the discussion.  I'll just let it be now and he can go with his own ideas on it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

All three groups represented in the joint rules committee have agreed that it's a scrape.  Why Canada missed it at first is, and probably will remain, a mystery.  Maybe they just didn't want to come down on a fellow Canadian.  For anyone who has made a study of the rules as I have for more than 20 years, it's quite obvious.  There are some things about the rules which do puzzle me, but this isn't one of them.

I don't know that it is THAT obvious.  There is a grey area in there somewhere, is there not?  I mean, the pitching method I recently learned involves actively using the bounce of the club to help give you room for error.  It does this by keeping the club from entering the ground, and instead gliding along under the ball allowing you to hit it fat without really hitting it fat.  Couldn't a person argue that that is "scraping?"  I mean, in my case, we're talking about 2-3" maximum of club contact with the ground, and in his case, maybe something closer to 12-15" so there is an obvious difference there, but where is the line drawn?

Is it simply because he starts with the club on the ground?  Or does it have something to do with the fact that his hands are separated?

I'm not saying that I disagree with the ruling, but that I don't think it's fair for you to say that it's "quite obvious."