Kenny Perry: Caught Cheating or Not?

[mad max]

You should have posted the longer video from the start. I understand that you may have just got access to the longer video but I do not think the majority of the people here have seen the longer video.

[Bauer]

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

It just seems reasonable because every time I press down RIGHT behind the ball the ball moves due to the blades of grass in the thick rough being interconnected. Either way, the embedded video is not enough to rule it a penalty, in my opinion.

[iacas]

You should have posted the longer video from the start. I understand that you may have just got access to the longer video but I do not think the majority of the people here have seen the longer video.

Exactly: I didn't have the longer video until I posted it. Soon as I had it, I posted it.

It just seems reasonable because every time I press down RIGHT behind the ball the ball moves due to the blades of grass in the thick rough being interconnected. Either way, the embedded video is not enough to rule it a penalty, in my opinion.

Don't know what you're doing, but I can press within three inches and not move the ball 99+ times out of 100.

I'm done. My mind's made up.

[Chas]

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.

Since you have just told us you believe that our opinions (including yours, expressed here) are irrelevant, I'll treat yours as such.

You can take the opinions of those "who are charged with making that call" as gospel if you like, that is your prerogative, but some of us can think for ourselves and are willing to form our own opinions based on the information available to us. This thread reminds us of one thing at least: in competitive play in the game of golf (at any level), some players need to be closely monitored or else they will try to improve their position by cheating.

[Jay-Bird]

The votes in the POLL at the top of this thread say it all.

33% Yes,
33% No,
33% inconclusive.

Only Kenny Perry knows. Has he commented on the issue?

[Tulsa]

Since you have just told us you believe that our opinions (including yours, expressed here) are irrelevant, I'll treat yours as such.

My opinion is you're beating a dead horse. Now you can closely monitor him if you wish, that's your prerogative but it certainly appears from the size of the crowd and the fact TV cameras were right there, being closely monitored isn't going to change the way he approaches his game.

[Chas]

I agree about the deceased equine flagellation. As to closer monitoring of Perry, I don't know what difference it would make, you can only guess. He got away with one IMO and is likely well aware of the controversy. This might well give him pause, guilty or not. Appearances matter, regardless of intent.

[PEZGolf]

This subject is now a moot point. However, within your foursome or mine, in a tournament, what we do is not a moot point. Here is my question---have you ever done something like what Ken Perry did? Here is my answer---in an important match in our Club Championship, when players were still wearing metal spikes, someone in front of us created a spike mark right on the line that I needed to use to make the putt. I have told people for years that I totally disagree with the rule that you cannot tap down a spike mark. I understand the reasoning behind it----that people will take forever to tap down every spike mark, but to me, that reasoning is not enough to overrule the simple reasoning that a player should not be punished for the action of another player. So---did I walk over, see the high piece of grass that had been left by someone in the group ahead of me, and without making it obvious, tap it down? Here is a clue---the putt was extremely difficult---a downhill, sliding left to right putt on a slick green. I was only 4' away, putting to win the match. Either the putt would go in, or go 6' below the hole. It was the 17th hole, and -------------------the putt went in! So---did I intentionally violate the rule or not? I will never tell.

[GDWindowpane]

If you tapped down a spike mark I believe you did indeed violate rule 16-1a and/or 16-1c if it was in your intended line of putt. Now give me back my parking space!!!

[iacas]

So---did I intentionally violate the rule or not? I will never tell.

Who cares? That whole story is off topic.

[Chas]

Show us a close-up video of the spike mark, of you tamping it down, and then of you making your putt. Then we can start a thread about it and deal out a suitable punishment ....

The problem with rule-breaking in competitive golf, as in other areas of life, is answering the question, "where exactly do I stop?". A certain proportion of people who are comfortable with breaking the "small" rules go on to be repeat offenders, and to break much bigger ones.

This post is not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a general remark about sport and life in the broad. One of the things I most like about golf is that it puts a large amount of responsibility for rule compliance on the individual. You don't have a referee or umpire watching you all the time, as you do in a match in a tennis tournament for example. It's true that not everyone lives up to the ideal, nor am I suggesting that I'm some sort of a . This is just the way it is, like it or not.

[DaveLeeNC]

This subject is now a moot point. However, within your foursome or mine, in a tournament, what we do is not a moot point. Here is my question---have you ever done something like what Ken Perry did? Here is my answer---in an important match in our Club Championship, when players were still wearing metal spikes, someone in front of us created a spike mark right on the line that I needed to use to make the putt. I have told people for years that I totally disagree with the rule that you cannot tap down a spike mark. I understand the reasoning behind it----that people will take forever to tap down every spike mark, but to me, that reasoning is not enough to overrule the simple reasoning that a player should not be punished for the action of another player. So---did I walk over, see the high piece of grass that had been left by someone in the group ahead of me, and without making it obvious, tap it down? Here is a clue---the putt was extremely difficult---a downhill, sliding left to right putt on a slick green. I was only 4' away, putting to win the match. Either the putt would go in, or go 6' below the hole. It was the 17th hole, and -------------------the putt went in! So---did I intentionally violate the rule or not? I will never tell.

Who cares? That whole story is off topic.

Given that both stories are about 'cheating' under circumstances that are more ambiguous than something like "is that ball OB or not", an off-topic assessment seems harsh to me.

I had originally felt that KP's actions were a technical violation of the ROG but also an (apparently) accepted practice on the PGA Tour (i.e., KP was not addressing the ball and therefore 'might - or maybe probably' improved his lie illegally. However I was puzzled at John Paramor's (European Tour chief referee) comments which were "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," Paramor told [Lawrence Donnegan of the Guardian]. "As soon as any player puts his club on the grass behind the ball, then the grass will be flattened. The issue is, is there excessive pressing down with the club? 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." Paramor's assessment seemed to totally ignore the fact that KP was not addressing the ball when the possibly illegal act took place. In the ROG definitions under "Addressing the Ball" you'll find "A player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, exept that in a hazard a ...." Rule 13 explicitly allows a player to improve his lie "if the action occurs in grounding the club LIGHTLY when addressing the ball" (among a couple other actions). The intent to hit the ball as part of "addressing the ball" is nowhere that I can find in the ROG (including a quick scan of the relevant Decisions relating to rule 13 in the ROG). Addressing the ball is just a label for a couple of legal things that you can do. From this I have to assume that if all the actions of "addressing the ball" are legal, then half of them are also legal (placing the club behind the ball without a stance being taken). I see no limit on the number of times you can do this, so unless your position is that any single "tap" of KP was not "light", I think I understand Paramor's summary which appeared to ignore whether or not KP was addressing the ball. And I would no longer agree that KP's actions were even a technical violation of the rules. And yes if placing your club "lightly" behind the ball 1,298,475,531 times will improve your lie it is (IMHO) legal - which should be on your gravestone after the group following you is finished with you "Was it light" is a different matter. No one in a position of authority (that I am aware of) has viewed it otherwise so I'm going with "it was light". dave

[iacas]

Given that both stories are about 'cheating' under circumstances that are more ambiguous than something like "is that ball OB or not", an off-topic assessment seems harsh to me.

It's off topic. It had nothing to do with Kenny Perry. If PEZ wanted to make a point, he chose a poor - and off-topic - way of doing so.

However I was puzzled at John Paramor's (European Tour chief referee) comments which were

We already addressed this (no pun intended). Again, I feel that in trying to sweep this under the rug and put it behind everybody, he got it wrong. First of all, intent doesn't matter.

Remove the "intent" part and he's still arguing in a way that doesn't even make sense. Let's assume it's perfectly legal that you can improve your lie by grounding the club when addressing the ball. OK: Kenny wasn't addressing the ball. And then Paramor says "it does look like he improved the lie." Well guess what? He wasn't addressing the ball, intent doesn't matter, and so the way I read it, Paramor is basically agreeing that KP broke the rules.

From this I have to assume that if all the actions of "addressing the ball" are legal, then half of them are also legal (placing the club behind the ball without a stance being taken).

What part of "and" makes you think that "half" of the actions are legal? Both actions need to be taken to have addressed the golf ball, not "half." It's right in the definition you quoted:

Source: Rules of Golf Definitions Addressing the Ball A player has "addressed the ball" when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

You can't do "half." You have to have taken your stance AND grounded your club. It's incredibly obvious that KP didn't take his stance, thus he wasn't addressing the ball, and thus he wasn't entitled to even moderately improve his lie through the allowed act of soling his club. In that instance it became 100% "improving his lie" and 0% "addressing the ball." It's why players will hover their club above the ball on the putting green when it's windy. You haven't addressed the ball. Additionally, you can set the putter behind the ball on the putting green and not take your stance yet and you, too, have not addressed the ball. Both actions have to occur. And Kenny would be a liar if he said "yeah, that was my stance" before he did the tappy tappy thing.

[DaveLeeNC]

However, Rule 13 NEVER states that you must address the ball - it just states "when addressing" with no requirement of completion (as in having "addressed" the ball). To quote Charley Hoffman (who lost the play-off to KP in the FBR) "I have no problem with what he did ... we all do it".

Please send further arguments to John Paramor - head referee of the European Tour.

dave

[iacas]

However, Rule 13 NEVER states that you must address the ball - it just states "when addressing" with no requirement of completion (as in having "addressed" the ball).

Duh - because the soling the club completes the act of "addressing the ball." Hence "when addressing." He wasn't addressing the ball, so "when addressing" still isn't satisfied. It's not like we're trying to parse complex phrases written in Olde English here...

Please send further arguments to John Paramor - head referee of the European Tour.

Weak.

You should have given up when you said you were going to before.

[DaveLeeNC]

However, Rule 13 NEVER states that you must address the ball - it just states "when addressing" with no requirement of completion (as in having "addressed" the ball). To quote Charley Hoffman (who lost the play-off to KP in the FBR) "I have no problem with what he did ... we all do it".

Duh - because the soling the club completes the act of "addressing the ball." Hence "when addressing." He wasn't addressing the ball, so "when addressing" still isn't satisfied. It's not like we're trying to parse complex phrases written in Olde English here...

If soling the club completes the act of addressing the ball, then clearly KP addressed the ball (according to you). If you want to parse the definition of 'stance' (the other part of address) and claim that KP didn't take a stance (getting into issues like "he was way too open ....."), have at it. I don't think it matters - the process of addressing doesn't require a successful completion.

I don't know exactly when this got personal but placing your opinion indisputably above John Paramor's is "weak" by any reasonable standard. dave

[iacas]

If soling the club completes the act of addressing the ball, then clearly KP addressed the ball (according to you).

No he didn't. Your stance isn't just "feet on the ground. "Stance" is defined by the Rules of Golf, too.

placing your opinion indisputably above John Paramor's is "weak" by any reasonable standard.

Hardly. I dissected what he said and pointed out the obvious flaws with what he said. His opinion isn't above being dissected and disagreed with. After all, not only did he bring "intent" into it when there's no such issue, but there were problems with his statement re: being able to sole the club anywhere, anytime. Just because he's an official doesn't mean he can't be wrong, have mis-spoke, have been mis-quoted, etc.

You've expended tremendous energy trying to find little loopholes in wording (that don't exist) when the basic rule is abundantly clear: don't improve your lie. Kenny did, you and I both know he wasn't in his address position with one hand on the club and going tappy tappy tappy while David Feherty describes a clump of grass that ONCE was there but which is no longer. How is what Charlie Hoffman says relevant? He was just trying to play down the possible controversy. The guy was 50 yards away, and again, if they DO all do that on the PGA Tour, it should be looked into. I've never seen it at any PGA Tour stop I've ever been to or seen on TV, and I wouldn't hesitate to bring it up to an official if I did see it.

[DaveLeeNC]

No he didn't. You can't just take any stance and he didn't even have two hands on the club.

You can't just take any stance?????????????????

I'm sorry - this discussion just got TOO STUPID for my participation. This time I AM Outta' Here (and unsubsciribing to this thread). dave