Did I break a rule?

[Joeyvee]

Ok. This COULD be pretty easy. Im not sure though. I went to fix a ball mark on the green with a tee the other day and after pushing it up some I used the back of MY HAND to tamp it back down. I think it is a violation. Doesnt matter in the game I was in but I want to be clear anyway.. I should have used the bottom of my putter or bottom of my shoe no?

[Mrd19abhs]

There is a thread about this that was posted after the big break show where brian touched the green. As long as your not testing the green you didnt commit a violation.

[montru]

I think if you were just patting it down, that was OK, as long as you don't brush either way to feel the direction of the grain.

[Joeyvee]

Hmmm. I thought I was in the wrong. That's cool. Thanks.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Joeyvee

Ok. This COULD be pretty easy. Im not sure though. I went to fix a ball mark on the green with a tee the other day and after pushing it up some I used the back of MY HAND to tamp it back down. I think it is a violation. Doesnt matter in the game I was in but I want to be clear anyway.. I should have used the bottom of my putter or bottom of my shoe no?

If you did anything to test the putting surface, then you were in breach of Rule 16-1d. It doesn't sound like you did, but I wouldn't make a habit of doing it that way.  It's best to tamp the repaired area down with the sole of your putter.

[LBlack14]

All about intent.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBlack14

All about intent.

Not really.  You can run afoul of this if you do something without intent, but that still does test the putting surface.  You could put your hand down absent mindely and rub it on the grass and still be in breach, regardless of whether you intended anything or not.    The rule reads:

Quote:

d. Testing Surface

During the stipulated round , a player must not test the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBlack14

All about intent.

Not really...

Yep, intent is completely irrelevant here.The only time intent comes into play in the rules of golf is in determining whether a stroke was made (e.g., if a player did not intend to hit the ball with their practice swing, it's not a stroke). This was a topic of conversation when a Big Break contestant did something similar to what the OP did - see pages 16-17 of this thread for further discussion: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/40309/official-big-break-dominican-republic-thread

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBlack14

All about intent.

Not really...

Yep, intent is completely irrelevant here.The only time intent comes into play in the rules of golf is in determining whether a stroke was made (e.g., if a player did not intend to hit the ball with their practice swing, it's not a stroke). This was a topic of conversation when a Big Break contestant did something similar to what the OP did - see pages 16-17 of this thread for further discussion: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/40309/official-big-break-dominican-republic-thread

There are some other cases where intent comes into play as described in the Decisions.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

There are some other cases where intent comes into play as described in the Decisions.

Can you provide any links? I'm curious.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

There are some other cases where intent comes into play as described in the Decisions.

Can you provide any links? I'm curious.

I'll have to glance through The Book and come back to you, but in the mean time pls. read this as an example.

Player marks his ball on the putting green and tosses it over to his caddie who cleans it and places it behind (not in front where the ball was picked up from) of the ballmarker. Thus the ball was not placed on the same spot it was lifted from. The question is whether the ball is in play or not. The answer depends on the intention of the caddie. If he intended to place the ball to be played by the player from that specific spot, then the ball is in play and the player is in breach of Rule 20. On the other hand, if the caddie intended to place the ball behind the ballmarker for the player to aim towards the hole with no intention to play it from that particular spot, then the ball would not be in play.

[sacm3bill]

Cool, thanks. I found that example in the decisions, btw - it's 20-4/2.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Cool, thanks. I found that example in the decisions, btw - it's 20-4/2.

Good. Then some more:

When concidering this issue one needs to broaden the perspective of word ‘intention’ to cover also such words as ‘deliberately’, ‘purposely’ and ‘consciously’. Taken those into account one finds numerous Decisions where the act of a person and ruling thereafter depends on the reason for the act, i.e. whether the act was done with intention or accidentally.

A couple of examples are:

Rule 1-2 vs. Rule 19-3 and 19-4 (exerting influence on the ball)

Dec. 1-2/1 vs. 16-1a/13 (damaging a line of putt)

Dec. 1-2/4.5 (player throws his putter at his ball)

Dec. 17-3/2 (ball strikes an attended flagstick)

Dec. 19-1/4, 19-1/4.1, 19-1/5 (a ball deliberately stopped)

Dec. 2-1/3 and 2-1/4 (omitting holes in match play)

Dec. 9-2/12 (giving incorrect information in match play)

There are some other examples but I believe this already gives a picture.

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBlack14

All about intent.

Not really. You can run afoul of this if you do something without intent , but that still does test the putting surface.  You could put your hand down absent mindely and rub it on the grass and still be in breach, regardless of whether you intended anything or not.    The rule reads:

Quote:

d. Testing Surface

During the stipulated round , a player must not test the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface.

I wonder if that is completely correct. After all, the Rule clearly states 'must not test the surface'. There are a couple of Decisions describing this issue and IMO they all state that intention is relevant. Pls. check Dec. 16-1d/2, 16-1d/3, 16-1d/4, 16-1d/5 and 16-1d/6 and share your thoughts about those with me.

[xxsoultonesxx]

Only if a viewer called it in.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not really.  You can run afoul of this if you do something without intent, but that still does test the putting surface.  You could put your hand down absent mindely and rub it on the grass and still be in breach, regardless of whether you intended anything or not.    The rule reads:

I wonder if that is completely correct. After all, the Rule clearly states 'must not test the surface'. There are a couple of Decisions describing this issue and IMO they all state that intention is relevant. Pls. check Dec. 16-1d/2, 16-1d/3, 16-1d/4, 16-1d/5 and 16-1d/6 and share your thoughts about those with me.

If I'm the on course rules official and I see a player rubbing the surface of the putting green I'm going to assume that he is testing the surface unless there is conclusive evidence that he isn't.  And I'm not just going to take his word for it.  Decision 16-1d/6 is a case where the player does not benefit from the action of his caddie, but he still incurs the penalty for testing the surface.  It's a different case, but it still leans me in the same direction.  The player had better have an iron clad reason unrelated to testing for rubbing the surface or I'm going to call him on it.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not really.  You can run afoul of this if you do something without intent, but that still does test the putting surface.  You could put your hand down absent mindely and rub it on the grass and still be in breach, regardless of whether you intended anything or not.    The rule reads:

I wonder if that is completely correct. After all, the Rule clearly states 'must not test the surface'. There are a couple of Decisions describing this issue and IMO they all state that intention is relevant. Pls. check Dec. 16-1d/2, 16-1d/3, 16-1d/4, 16-1d/5 and 16-1d/6 and share your thoughts about those with me.

If I'm the on course rules official and I see a player rubbing the surface of the putting green I'm going to assume that he is testing the surface unless there is conclusive evidence that he isn't.  And I'm not just going to take his word for it.  Decision 16-1d/6 is a case where the player does not benefit from the action of his caddie, but he still incurs the penalty for testing the surface.  It's a different case, but it still leans me in the same direction.  The player had better have an iron clad reason unrelated to testing for rubbing the surface or I'm going to call him on it.

I can understand your point but as one of those Decisions points out that even rubbing a ball against the green for the purpose of cleaning it is not a breach of R16 even though the player very well may get some information of the surface by that act. Now, would you penalize a player doing that and not having conclusive evidence that he was not testing the surface?

Maybe I am a bit naive but I do respect the player's integrity and would not be the first one to doubt his words, unless there is evidence to the contrary. After all, if one is cheating it will slap one's own face sooner or later regardless of the ruling one gets on the course.

[quantus]

i reread what you poste and still can't quite grasp it :) lol...but it really depends if "you were caught"...like in every other sport, lol.