Ryan Palmer Kicks Divot at TOC, Absolved of 11.3 Breach

[Vinsk]

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

consciously and intentionally; on purpose.

The player can still lie about it though. Hideki clearly repaired the lie when he stepped down his divot that his ball was directly heading to. It was obvious. He simply said he didn’t do it to improve his lie. It was absolutely why he quickly repaired the pitch as the ball came rolling back to him. It was 100% deliberate.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

“Deliberately” is the intent part.

consciously and intentionally; on purpose.

"the fire was started deliberately"

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

You're not reading the rule properly.

He can deliberately kick something, it just can't be "to affect where that ball might come to rest."

Thus, "I was angry, and that's why I (deliberately) kicked it" = no penalty.

1 minute ago, Vinsk said:

The player can still lie about it though. Hideki clearly repaired the lie when he stepped down his divot that his ball was directly heading to. It was obvious. He simply said he didn’t do it to improve his lie. It was absolutely why he quickly repaired the pitch as the ball came rolling back to him. It was 100% deliberate.

Yup.

[ncates00]

Just now, Vinsk said:

The player can still lie about it though. Hideki clearly repaired the lie when he stepped down his divot that his ball was directly heading to. It was obvious. He simply said he didn’t do it to improve his lie. It was absolutely why he quickly repaired the pitch as the ball came rolling back to him. It was 100% deliberate.

Which is why intent can be inferred based upon the circumstances. 

[iacas]

Just now, ncates00 said:

Which is why intent can be inferred based upon the circumstances. 

Once again, you're not reading the rule properly.

The intent is not whether you did the thing, it's why you did the thing.

Other examples include players doing something "to care for the course," which can get them out of some penalties if that's their (stated) intent.

[ncates00]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

The intent is not whether you did the thing, it's why you did the thing.

I never said this. I’m referring to “why.” Again, intent can be inferred. It’s done in court all the time and is treated as proven intent. 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I never said this. I’m referring to “why.” Again, intent can be inferred. It’s done in court all the time and is treated as proven intent. 

And I'll say once again: you're wrong on this.

We don't get to infer intent here - we ask the guy, and make a decision. Only in the rarest of circumstances (it's incredibly obvious that the guy is lying) do we penalize despite what he said.

Like when Michelle Wie grounded her club in what was then called a water hazard, and then lied and said "I was doing it for balance" (which was one of the exceptions).

Intent is almost never "inferred" in golf, even those rare times when "intent" matters to the rule.

If Palmer's answer was that he was kicking it because he was made, and it's not clear he's lying his ass off, the correct ruling was made.

[ncates00]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

And I'll say once again: you're wrong on this.

We don't get to infer intent here - we ask the guy, and make a decision. Only in the rarest of circumstances (it's incredibly obvious that the guy is lying) do we penalize despite what he said.

Like when Michelle Wie grounded her club in what was then called a water hazard, and then lied and said "I was doing it for balance" (which was one of the exceptions).

Intent is almost never "inferred" in golf, even those rare times when "intent" matters to the rule.

If Palmer's answer was that he was kicking it because he was made, and it's not clear he's lying his ass off, the correct ruling was made.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, your answer is why we don’t need intent involved in rules of golf. We don’t look at intent very much in most other sports. Even with intentional grounding in football we don’t ask what the quarterback’s intentions were. 

Edited January 11, 2021 by ncates00

[sjduffers]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

FTFY

No you didn't. The ball didn't roll back to where he initially was. He was walking towards the new spot, the ball making an arc crossing at least half of the front of the green. In contrast, Villegas ball went up and immediately back down, right at him, as he was busy stamping his own divot.  Palmer's kicked divot was not his own, not that it makes any difference, other than to show that the trajectory of the ball was not as straight up and down as you imply. As he was walking towards the new (future) resting spot of the ball, he was clearly evaluating where that would be, lest the ball would hit him for instance.

Clearly not the same thing as looking up and thinking "oh shit, it's coming right back here, better do some cleanup first", which is what Villeagas did.

[iacas]

34 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Fair enough. Nonetheless, your answer is why we don’t need intent involved in rules of golf. We don’t look at intent very much in most other sports. Even with intentional grounding in football we don’t ask what the quarterback’s intentions were. 

🤦‍♂️

And yes, there are both:

• instances in other sports where the intent matters.
• instances in golf where intent matters and should remain.

I'm all for removing intent from the Rules where possible. The definition of a "swing"? Not really possible (or practical).

12 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

No you didn't. The ball didn't roll back to where he initially was.

I didn't say it did. And whether the ball is going back to the initial spot or a new spot is irrelevant - only whether the ball has a possibility of going into the area where you "do the thing."

12 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

… not that it makes any difference…

Right, so why include it?

12 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

… other than to show that the trajectory of the ball was not as straight up and down as you imply.

I've not implied any such thing. I've said he walked 20-25 feet away. What you're not getting is that it's irrelevant where this occurred or whether the divot was his own.

[sjduffers]

59 minutes ago, iacas said:

What you're not getting is that it's irrelevant where this occurred or whether the divot was his own.

No. I totally get that it's irrelevant: I said as much. But it also shows it's not the same thing as what happened in the Villegas case. The facts are different (and the rules too). That's all I object to: you said it's almost the same thing. I am arguing it's not.

In fact here, Palmer deliberately walked towards the area where the ball would rest (in the future), chosing where to stand and not stand, presumably to avoid getting hit, etc. Villegas did no such thing: the ball came right back at him while he was busy cleaning his divot hole. Therefore Palmer could also argue that he chose to stand where he did, precisely because he knew the ball wouldn't go there.

Peace out.

Edited January 11, 2021 by sjduffers

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

But it also shows it's not the same thing as what happened in the Villegas case.

Nobody is arguing that it's exactly the same.

13 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

The facts are different (and the rules too).

Barely. The only real difference, inasmuch as it matters to the Rules, is that the Rules changed. Had he done this in 2018, I think he'd have been penalized. Like Camilo.

13 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

That's all I object to: you said it's almost the same thing. I am arguing it's not.

Except that it is. This isn't a matter of opinion, the relevant facts are almost the same.

That one player had to move and kicked his own divot and that the other didn't is not a relevant fact. That it's different does not matter.

13 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

In fact here, Palmer deliberately walked towards the area where the ball would rest (in the future), chosing where to stand and not stand, presumably to avoid getting hit, etc. Villegas did no such thing:

That is not relevant.

13 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

the ball came right back at him while he was busy cleaning his divot hole. Therefore Palmer could also argue that he chose to stand where he did, precisely because he knew the ball wouldn't go there.

He in fact couldn't.

Look, some of this stuff isn't opinion. It's how we, as Rules Officials, are taught. The ball was in a small enough area that he had to be very careful about his actions there, and only him saying "oh, I was just mad, I wasn't trying to improve stuff" saved him. He'd have almost surely been penalized in 2018 had he done the same thing(s).

[Birdieputt]

On 1/10/2021 at 4:37 PM, 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.

 

Agreed no way the ball is getting near the divot.