Kenny Perry: Caught Cheating or Not?

[Chas]

If this sort of thing is accepted practice and not worthy of penalty, I wasn't aware of it. Perhaps the rules officials should clarify the point for the golfing public in that case, so that the rest of us can also improve their lies the way Perry did. I've had plenty of situations where that would have been very nice ......

*note to self: let's hope I'm wrong. This could really help me in my main golfing goal for the year.

[DaveLeeNC]

If this sort of thing is accepted practice and not worthy of penalty, I wasn't aware of it. Perhaps the rules officials should clarify the point for the golfing public in that case, so that the rest of us can also improve their lies the way Perry did. I've had plenty of situations where that would have been very nice ......

Just address the ball and put your club down behind it - you will get exactly the same result as KP got. And if you don't like the stance or something, back off. You don't need a new rule.

dave

[iacas]

I have no idea where 'the clump' that Feherty referred to is/was either before or after the shot.

Because KP tapped it down. :)

Some facts: 1) You could barely see Kenny's ball. Feherty refers to a "clump" and stumbles as... 2) ... Kenny taps the ground repeatedly right behind his ball, not while taking his stance. 3) You can then see the majority of Kenny's ball. We know that Kenny tapped the grass right behind his ball because the camera angles and the location of his feet in the longer video (when he taps and when he plays his shot) show us this much.

I also have no idea where Feherty was when he made the reference (he sure wasn't anywhere in any of the video's that I've seen including the longer one referenced here).

He walks ahead, he checks the lies, and then he gets out of the way. Hoffman's ball was on the fairway, so nothing to check out there.

I do believe that this is the 'in the rough version' of a practice that EVERYBODY that I am aware of uses regarding the implementation of Rule 13-4 prohibiting testing of a hazard.

Why are we talking about testing the condition of a hazard? If KP broke a rule, it's the "improving the lie" rule, not "testing the condition."

It would appear that KP had no intention of actually addressing the ball, but that is just an appearance.

No, he didn't address the ball. You take your stance THEN ground the clubhead. He hadn't even taken his stance, so he wasn't even part-way towards "addressing" the ball.

If he had simply stepped up and addressed the ball before stepping back, then I would assume this is undeniably legal (with no change in the situation).

No, if he improved his lie, it still would not have been legal.

If the PGA Tour wants to prohibit this action

It's not the PGA Tour's call. It's the Rules of Golf, and I'm of the opinion that KP broke one.

Why does it matter exactly when he improved his lie before taking his shot? According to you, if I find myself with a nasty great clump of grass right behind my ball and really need a ton of backspin to stay on the green (fast green, pond in back, downslope to pin, championship on the line ....

Right on. You can't improve your lie - whether you're actually addressing the ball or not. The RoG allow you to lightly sole your club (not in hazards of course), but that's superseded by the "must not improve your lie" rule. The first is a privilege - the latter is a RULE. There's no rule that you "must" sole your club, simply that you're allowed to within certain constraints (one of those being that you don't improve your lie, swing path, etc.).

Just address the ball and put your club down behind it - you will get exactly the same result as KP got. And if you don't like the stance or something, back off. You don't need a new rule.

That's irrelevant per the reasons I laid out above. You're permitted to lightly sole your club so long as you don't improve your lie.

Furthermore, I don't "tap tap tap" on the ground when addressing the ball. KP did, and to pretend that he was even remotely close to "addressing the ball" is not only irrelevant, but entirely silly. He wasn't addressing the ball. And it'd be irrelevant if he was.

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, you can improve you lie in the process of grounding the club while fairly taking a stance (Rule 13). My habit is to ground it twice (set it down, take alignment, look up and up comes the club, then repeat - the risk of the ball moving in the kind of rough that i play is minimal). KP did it 3 times by my count. You could argue that he didn't do it 'lightly' - I wouldn't know how to take a position on that.

Per the ROG, just like basically every single bunker shot hit on the PGA Tour (where you test the sand with your feet intentionally), I believe the KP broke the rules.

But just like every bunker shot ever hit on the PGA Tour I don't believe that a penalty should have been called.

dave

[Chas]

I don't understand why you keep making the analogy with a bunker shot in which a golfer moves his feet around to settle on a good body position - without changing anything about the lie of the ball . I do this every time, and so do just about all golfers with a reasonable level of experience on the beach. In doing this, we are not improving the lie of the ball in the sand, we are improving our footing, a different matter entirely.

Now if I were to push the sand up from in front of the ball in a bunker so that the ball was sitting on a little mound of sand (same principle as building an old-fashioned Scottish tee), then I would be in gross violation and should be summarily dragged off the course in disgrace .....

Grounding the club one time while preparing to hit the ball is a different matter, but I had assumed that one couldn't improve one's lie like that either. Difficult to judge, I grant you. Of course Perry wasn't preparing to hit the ball when he improved his lie, he was busy doing a spot of gardening and pretending that it was some sort of a "test".

Which it was I suppose, and he failed it IMHO.

[DaveLeeNC]

I don't understand why you keep making the analogy with a bunker shot in which a golfer moves his feet around to settle on a good body position -

I'm simply pointing out that there exists a commonly accepted practice that (IMHO) violates any reasonable intepretation of the ROG ("testing" the bunker with your feet). And this would include my interpretation of Decision 13-4/0.5.

dave

[albatross]

I'm a Kenny Perry fan but boy, that looks like a lot of tapping down to me.

[iacas]

FWIW, you can improve you lie in the process of grounding the club while fairly taking a stance (Rule 13).

Yes, you're permitted to "lightly ground the club."

You're not permitted to go tappity-tap all over the place, and you're certainly not allowed to do it when not addressing the ball.

My habit is to ground it twice (set it down, take alignment, look up and up comes the club, then repeat - the risk of the ball moving in the kind of rough that i play is minimal). KP did it 3 times by my count. You could argue that he didn't do it 'lightly' - I wouldn't know how to take a position on that.

The first two times you ground the club you have not addressed the ball and thus, if you improve the lie at that point, you've broken the rules. You take your stance, you ground your club, and that's when you've "addressed the ball."

But just like every bunker shot ever hit on the PGA Tour I don't believe that a penalty should have been called.

The rules permit you to fairly take your stance in hazards. Your insistence on tying this to the rules regarding hazards also makes no sense.

I don't understand why...

Me either. I think he thinks that we're all really just "testing" the bunker, thus violating the letter of the rule but not the spirit of the rule.

Except that, by rule, we're not breaking the letter of the law in the bunker... I remember a guy was penalized awhile back (two years ago? last year?) for digging into a bunker, taking some practice swings, and then digging in again six inches closer to his ball. Since he dug his feet into the sand away from his stance, HE was deemed to have "tested the condition" of the bunker and was - appropriately - penalized. Here's the thread . It was Jonathan Byrd. Some people didn't agree with that ruling, but why would he dig in away from his stance? You don't do that.

[DaveLeeNC]

BTW, we agree that KP broke the ROG.

The questions are:

1) Were his actions in excess of what is permitted by Rule 13-2 (had he actually been addressing the ball - I have no doubt that if you were to ask him if he were addressing the ball, he would say no)

2) Should the answer to #1 make a difference per enforcement and practice on the PGA Tour

Once again my only point with the bunker analogy is to point out (IMHO) a precedent for rules (same rule, BTW) that are not enforced. I know that I stop 'wiggling' my feet when I have the (limited) information about the sand that is available that way (violating letter and spirit of the ROG).

dave

[iacas]

1) Were his actions in excess of what is permitted by Rule 13-2 (had he actually been addressing the ball - I have no doubt that if you were to ask him if he were addressing the ball, he would say no)

Yes. That wasn't "lightly."

2) Should the answer to #1 make a difference per enforcement and practice on the PGA Tour

Why are you always trying to be hypothetical?

The Rules of Golf should be enforced. Period. I think Kenny got away with this one here. I don't know what you mean by "make a difference." Should rules officials be more careful when watching players? No. Again: rules officials are there to help players, not to call penalties on them. Players should penalize themselves or, ideally, not break the rules to begin with.

Once again my only point with the bunker analogy is to point out (IMHO) a precedent for rules (same rule, BTW) that are not enforced. I know that I stop 'wiggling' my feet when I have the (limited) information about the sand that is available that way (violating letter and spirit of the ROG).

Uhm, that's not why you wiggle your feet into the sand - or why you're allowed to wiggle your feet into the sand. You're allowed to do that because if you didn't you'd be slipping and sliding all over the place.

Furthermore, digging your feet into the sand isn't an example of the excluded actions: - pressing a club on the ground, - moving, bending or breaking anything growing or fixed (including immovable obstructions and objects defining out of bounds), - creating or eliminating irregularities of surface, - removing or pressing down sand, loose soil, replaced divots or other cut turf placed in position, or - removing dew, frost or water. So no, it's not the same rule. 13-4 talks about hazards and says you can't: - Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard; - Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or - Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard. Says nothing about digging your feet in. I'm glad you agree KP broke the rules, but your grasp of the rules or why golfers do certain things seems to be lacking in a small way. I don't dig my feet in to "test the condition" of the bunker. Sometimes I can gain a little bit of information by doing so, but most of the time it's simply to get my feet near to level and to make sure I don't slip.

[DaveLeeNC]

I'm done here (I hope - is that applause that I hear in the background? )

John Paramor, chief referee of the European Tour with, you would think, 'no dog in this hunt' has an even broader view (apparently) of what is allowed here.

The fact is the player is allowed to put his club behind the ball, otherwise he would never be allowed to address his ball in any circumstance. As soon as any player puts his club on the grass behind the ball, then the grass will be flattened," he says. "The issue is, is there excessive pressing down with the club?" In other words, was there intent? "Looking at this, I don't think Kenny Perry did use excessive pressure when he put his club behind the ball. It does look bad, it does look like the lie was improved but, as long as there was no intent to do so, and I don't think there was, then it is not a penalty.
http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2009...the-judge.html

But like I said - I've said my say too many times already.

dave

[Bauer]

I originally voted inconclusive but I am leaning towards not cheating. For him to improve his lie he would have to be very close to the ball when pressing down the grass with his club. After watching how fast and haphazardly he was pressing down the grass, it seems to me that if he was likely close enough to the ball we would have seen the ball move. I have done it a million times in grass similar to the thickness of that grass in the video when I approach my ball an inch behind it and the ball moves because I set my clubhead down. And I am careful in these situations. He seems to be "violently testing" the grass with his club and the balls doesn't budge. I would doubt he was close enough affect his lie very much.

[Chas]

Dave Lee: re "applause in the background" .... not at all, it's been an interesting and useful discussion - for me anyway. I can see that there is room for interpretation when it comes to putting the club down gently in preparing for the swing (which I hadn't thought about before to be candid), but 1) Kenny wasn't doing that (we are all agreed), and 2) why press more than lightly on thick, squishy grass right behind your ball, since it may raise doubts about your character and you may get yourself roasted on internet forums?

Erik: you've really crushed me now, coz I was hoping (by reverse application of Dave's logic), that maybe it's OK to build myself a little platform for a ball in a bunker - as long as I can argue without blushing that I was only addressing the ball. This would be especially useful with the fried egg of course. Dag nammit, looks like that dog won't hunt after all ......

* sound of dead horse being beaten *

[worst_shot_ever]

I may be a bit dense, I admit, but I still don't understand where the golfer's intent comes into the application of this particular RoG. Either you improved the lie, or you didn't; if you did, it was either as a result of the permitted acts, or wasn't. If KP's actions here violated the rule, by his design or otherwise, and regardless of how often it's not caught or called when others do it, he still violated the rule and won that championship under false pretenses.

Edit: by the way, I also like KP, and I voted "inconclusive" (because it's up to the golfer to admit his own rule violations and the video evidence is not absolutely conclusive beyond doubt, or whatever standard we're supposed to apply, that he improved the lie here) -- but I'm now leaning pretty firmly toward the view that he violated the rule and should have called the penalty.

[iacas]

In other words, was there intent?

Paramor is wrong for exactly this reason:

I may be a bit dense, I admit, but I still don't understand where the golfer's intent comes into the application of this particular RoG.

Intent is irrelevant here.

For him to improve his lie he would have to be very close to the ball when pressing down the grass with his club.

You need to watch the longer video. He pressed on the ground

right behind the ball . His feet, his clubhead, everything is in the same spot as when he actually addresses the ball and hits it.

After watching how fast and haphazardly he was pressing down the grass, it seems to me that if he was likely close enough to the ball we would have seen the ball move.

Why would pressing down a clump behind the ball make it move.

If KP's actions here violated the rule, by his design or otherwise, and regardless of how often it's not caught or called when others do it, he still violated the rule and won that championship under false pretenses.

[whip_it_out]

I voted inconclusive for the reason that I would like to see another angle.
His movements very obviously changed how the grass was lying, but I cannot tell if he was doing it intentionally or just grounding his club.

His actions look very suspicious, but there isn't enough evidence to prove anything.

[iacas]

I voted inconclusive for the reason that I would like to see another angle.

Did you watch the longer video. He clearly taps down right behind the ball - within three inches or so.

His movements very obviously changed how the grass was lying, but I cannot tell if he was doing it intentionally or just grounding his club.

Arghhhh!!! Intent doesn't matter and he wasn't addressing the ball.

[Tulsa]

He was deemed to not have cheated by the people who are charged with making that call. As long as you can satisfy those folks, what we all think he did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Now if you want to subscribe to the theory the guy charged with making that call was either on Perry's payroll or simply incompetent, that's another story. For the history books, he didn't cheat.