Ryan Palmer Kicks Divot at TOC, Absolved of 11.3 Breach

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, jmanbooyaa said:

Under the old rule you would have to I would think.  But those rules don’t apply anymore. 

The only real change is his intent in kicking the divot. So it’s still something to discuss, and still a reason to bring him in.

3 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Seeing it again confirms it in my opinion.

There was no way in the world that ball was going to be anywhere near that divot when Palmer kicked it.

Yeah, no. It’s rolling pretty fast when he looks away. The area that is considered is quite large, because it’s the area that the ball might roll into where it could affect the next shot to be played.

Whether the ball actually rolls to that area is not really relevant - only whether it could have.

[sjduffers]

I DVR'd the round and watched some of it, and happened to catch that "incident". The ball was never going to be in the area that he stepped on, even though he was not really watching it. It only turned into an incident after the commenting crew said something like "watch it!"...  This really was a non-issue, in my view.

I do remember the Villegas case some years ago, and this was nothing like that.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

I do remember the Villegas case some years ago, and this was nothing like that.

It was almost exactly like that.

14 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

The ball was never going to be in the area that he stepped on

This is where you lose it.

[saevel25]

It's hard to prove intent, but he looks at the ball and then see this divot staying there. The previous article had the image in my head that he immediately kicked a divot away out of anger. I didn't know he walked 15-20 yards before kicking the divot. It looks more like he saw the path of the ball, noticed the divot, and kicked it out of the way. 

I think the penalty is warranted. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I think the penalty is warranted. 

Except it’s not, because under the Rules, he said that wasn’t his intent. 😛

[Rulesman]

That ball was never going to reach the divot and it had been rolling in the wrong direction anyway.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Rulesman

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

That ball was never going to reach the divot.

You know this because you were there, and could see the slopes?

His actions were curious, for sure. Why kick a divot 20 feet away from where you hit the shot and when the ball was less than ten feet away and still moving toward the divot?

The people on the grounds seem to disagree, including the people in the booth calling it. You can tell from their immediate reaction when they see him do it, and then the fact that a Rules Official talked to him about it.

[Rulesman]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

You know this because you were there, and could see the slopes?

His actions were curious, for sure. Why kick a divot 20 feet away from where you hit the shot and when the ball was less than ten feet away and still moving toward the divot?

The people on the grounds seem to disagree, including the people in the booth calling it. You can tell from their immediate reaction when they see him do it, and then the fact that a Rules Official talked to him about it.

I would suggest that the people in the booth had no better indication of any slope change than we do. They were probably nowhere near or seeing the same picture we are. My reading was that there was a significant change in slope because of the rapid deceleration.

The referee was no doubt reacting to comments. There is no evidence in the clip that he was close by at the time.

Whether the referee thought the ball would have reached the divot is not known. But there was no breach because seemingly the referee decided there was no intent. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

I would suggest that the people in the booth had no better indication of any slope change than we do.

And you’re welcome to do so, just as others are welcome to throw away that “take.”

They were on the property. You weren’t.

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

My reading was that there was a significant change in slope because of the rapid deceleration.

And it might have crested that slope and gotten onto another slope and rolled through the area of the divot if it had 0.2 MPH more speed.

Obviously the ball came to rest, but that’s not how the Rule is written or how it’s judged. It’s whether the ball could roll into the area where the divot was, not whether it did in fact do so.

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The referee was no doubt reacting to comments. There is no evidence in the clip that he was close by at the time.

No doubt? You don’t think, maybe, he could have watched the clip? That he could have gone out to the hole to see what the slopes were like?

At the very least he was on the property. Were you?

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Whether the referee thought the ball would have reached the divot is not known.

If he thought there was no chance then I don’t think he’d have brought it up. Why discuss it with Ryan Palmer if there’s no chance? If someone kicks a divot after they hit a 7-iron, we don’t discuss it with them because there’s no chance the divot will come into play. If he felt similarly here, why discuss it?

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

But there was no breach because seemingly the referee decided there was no intent. 

We covered that in the second post to the topic.

The fact is I don’t know how I’d have felt if I was standing there watching. Maybe there’s no additional slope the ball could have caught. I can’t say definitively, when the ball was five feet from where it stopped, if it was going to stop.

But you can’t say definitively how you’d have felt if you were on the property, either. On one side, you have the fact that the ball did stop. On the other side, you have his actions which are quite peculiar, the reactions of spectators, and the fact that he was questioned about it.

I’m not arguing that you’re wrong. Only that you can’t say definitively as you have that there was “no chance” or “never going to reach the divot.”

[Big C]

I read the comments and reviewed the video expecting it to be a borderline call. IMO, it's not really. The chance of that divot being in the path of the ball is essentially zero. I think no penalty is the correct call, both under the current and former version of the rules.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Big C said:

I read the comments and reviewed the video expecting it to be a borderline call. IMO, it's not really. The chance of that divot being in the path of the ball is essentially zero. I think no penalty is the correct call, both under the current and former version of the rules.

So I take it you were on the grounds, too? We’re you socially distancing from @Rulesman?

You don’t know that the chance was “essentially zero.”

And I think it likely would have been a penalty prior to 2019.

[sjduffers]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

It was almost exactly like that.

In Villegas case, he was pitching up to the green from an area well below the green and behind it, came up short and the ball was rolling back essentially to his feet and he did something to stomp the ground where he had hit the ball initially, as the ball was rolling back almost to the same spot.

It's clear from the video here that the ball never had a chance to roll where Palmer was standing and cleared his divot, so no it's not at all comparable. Feel free to disagree, but that's what I saw (and remember from the Villegas case).

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

In Palmer's case, he was pitching up to the green from an area well below the green and beside it, came up short and the ball was rolling back to a low spot 20 feet away and he did something to kick a divot where his ball might end up, as the ball was rolling back to that spot.

FTFY.

3 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

It's clear

It isn't.

If it was, the announcers wouldn't have said "oomph," he likely wouldn't have walked quickly to the area and kicked the divot, and there wouldn't have been a rules discussion.

[Rulesman]

41 minutes ago, iacas said:

FTFY.

It isn't.

If it was, the announcers wouldn't have said "oomph," he likely wouldn't have walked quickly to the area and kicked the divot, and there wouldn't have been a rules discussion.

Are you sure the commentators knew the difference between the old and new?

But I don't believe anyone here was actually anywhere near the live situation so we are expressing opinions based on the TV coverage. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Are you sure the commentators knew the difference between the old and new?

Doesn't really matter, as the only thing that really changed is the addition of "intent," which they couldn't know.

3 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

But I don't believe anyone here was actually anywhere near the live situation so we are expressing opinions based on the TV coverage. 

Of course.

[ncates00]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Doesn't really matter, as the only thing that really changed is the addition of "intent," which they couldn't know.

Intent can be inferred from the circumstances and that is treated the same as “proving” it. Here, he hit a poor shot, watched his ball, walked briskly over toward where his ball is rolling back, saw the divot, and put his foot on it. I’d say that’s enough to infer intent and a breach of the new rule. 
 

That said, I don’t agree with your assessment of changing “to” to “that.” You can do a simpler change by simply deleting “deliberately.” 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Intent can be inferred from the circumstances and that is treated the same as “proving” it. Here, he hit a poor shot, watched his ball, walked briskly over toward where his ball is rolling back, saw the divot, and put his foot on it. I’d say that’s enough to infer intent and a breach of the new rule. 

But, you're wrong here, and it's not enough.

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

That said, I don’t agree with your assessment of changing “to” to “that.” You can do a simpler change by simply deleting “deliberately.” 

I'm not going to debate whether changing a word or deleting a much longer word is "simpler."

And I disagree, because what if in walking to get out of the way the player "took an action" (stepping) and that action resulted in a change to the conditions (like he stepped on a partially replaced divot that pushed it down).

Keep "deliberately," remove the "intent" part.

[ncates00]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

But, you're wrong here, and it's not enough.

I'm not going to debate whether changing a word or deleting a much longer word is "simpler."

And I disagree, because what if in walking to get out of the way the player "took an action" (stepping) and that action resulted in a change to the conditions (like he stepped on a partially replaced divot that pushed it down).

Keep "deliberately," remove the "intent" part.

“Deliberately” is the intent part. 

consciously and intentionally; on purpose.

"the fire was started deliberately"

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

But, you're wrong here, and it's not enough.

I’m not sure 1) what is wrong or 2) why it’s not enough.