Should the "Wind moves ball after putter is grounded" rule be changed?

[Fourputt]

I'd think that they would have to be very careful in how they determine causation.  You start to get into a judgment mode here.  I have never cared much for rules which don't define themselves in black and white.  It leaves too much room for subjectivity.  Right now it's simple binary - on or off - no gray.  Since there is already a simple way to avoid the penalty, I don't like even messing with it.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

I have a question though. What if you putt the ball and it misses the hole, then the wind gusts and the ball then falls?

In a sense, i guess the wind can help as much as it can hurt.

This is a little bit quirky, but I think the rule would go as follows.  If the ball is not yet overhanging the cup, you can wait as long as it takes until it either stops moving for the first time after your stroke or begins overhanging the cup.  Once it's overhanging the cup, you have ten seconds after you reach the ball (or after a reasonable time to reach the ball) for it to fall in.  If it falls in during that time, it's holed, if not it is deemed to be at rest and if it falls in after that time, you have holed out and must take a penalty stroke.

Anyway, that too is not really relevant to the question of addressing the ball having an impact.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I'd think that they would have to be very careful in how they determine causation.  You start to get into a judgment mode here.  I have never cared much for rules which don't define themselves in black and white.  It leaves too much room for subjectivity.  Right now it's simple binary - on or off - no gray.  Since there is already a simple way to avoid the penalty, I don't like even messing with it.

I agree.  I don't see that the modification described in the paragraph quoted by Iacas really improves the situation much.  It actually seems to create a new situation---before, if you cause the ball to move, you replace it.  If it moves "by itself" (by wind, etc), you play it as it lies.  If it moves for any reason after address, the reason is deemed to have been your fault, so you just apply that rule.  With the modification, if I understand correctly, you now replace it if it moves "by itself" after address, so the rule is actually different, meaning we've got a new gray area plus one more special case to remember.

The consideration of the ball moving large distances due to wind is interesting, but one has to be careful not to get into the business of deciding whether movement is "important" or not.  The overriding goal should be to stick as close to "play it as it lies" as is practical, so in that sense a half inch motion is as illegal as a 20 yard motion.

[Zeph]

Current rule: You ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Ball is replaced, one shot penalty.

New rule: You ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Ball is replaced, no penalty.

Current rule: You don't ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Play the ball as it lies.

New rule: You don't ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Play the ball as it lies.

Current rule: You bump the ball and it changes position. Ball is replaced, one shot penalty.

New rule: You bump the ball and it changes position. Ball is replaced, one shot penalty.

I don't see how changing this rule can create new situations that are difficult to decide. The only thing that change is you don't get penalized when the wind moves your ball. Everything is done exactly the same regarding when you replace the ball or not.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Zeph

I don't see how changing this rule can create new situations that are difficult to decide. The only thing that change is you don't get penalized when the wind moves your ball. Everything is done exactly the same regarding when you replace the ball or not.

Right now the rule (or, at least, the relevant part) for whether to replace the ball is "Did the player cause the ball to move?" If yes, replace it, if no play it as it lies.  Then, separately, if you have addressed the ball and it moves, you are deemed to have caused it, and you apply the same rule to determine that you must replace it.  This is a pretty minor distinction, and I don't mean to make it more than it is, but it just seems conceptually simpler to me because it keeps the separate parts of the decision making separate.

There is also complication to how you define the rule about the address.  If you address the ball, then step away, do you replace it if it moves or not?  If so, then you introduce an incentive to run up and address a ball that is in danger of rolling down an incline to "lock in" its position, which is somewhat contrary to the spirit of the game.  If not, how do you define whether you've "de-addressed" the ball?  Again, these aren't insurmountable---one could certainly create a rule to address them---but I still don't see things as being unequivocally improved by a change like this.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Zeph

I don't see how changing this rule can create new situations that are difficult to decide. The only thing that change is you don't get penalized when the wind moves your ball. Everything is done exactly the same regarding when you replace the ball or not.

Exactly. There are other times when the certainty of the player is taken into account, and I can see this being made one such instance.

If the player can say with certainty that they didn't cause the ball to move, then we believe them.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

Exactly. There are other times when the certainty of the player is taken into account, and I can see this being made one such instance.

If the player can say with certainty that they didn't cause the ball to move, then we believe them.

Actually, I don't have that big a problem with this---I think it's probably better the way it is, but not by a major factor.  However, I don't like the idea that once you've addressed the ball it would be replaced instead of played as it lies if you did not cause it to move.  That seems nonsensical to me.

[Kieran123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

Actually, I don't have that big a problem with this---I think it's probably better the way it is, but not by a major factor.  However, I don't like the idea that once you've addressed the ball it would be replaced instead of played as it lies if you did not cause it to move.  That seems nonsensical to me.

Especially if it only moves a few mms...but it does make sense if it moved say, half a foot. I guess that's why though

[Phil McGleno]

If your ball moves and you don't want to be blamed, don't ground your putter. If they change the rule, I'm okay with that too. (Erik censorship thing works.)

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Especially if it only moves a few mms...but it does make sense if it moved say, half a foot. I guess that's why though

Well, again, I don't think the distance it moves matters as long as you didn't cause it.  If the wind blows your ball 20 yards down a slick, sloped green when you're nowhere around it, then you play it as it lies.  If you're going to change the rules to allow the wind to be the cause after address, you should still have to accept this as an event akin to a rub of the green.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

Well, again, I don't think the distance it moves matters as long as you didn't cause it.  If the wind blows your ball 20 yards down a slick, sloped green when you're nowhere around it, then you play it as it lies.  If you're going to change the rules to allow the wind to be the cause after address, you should still have to accept this as an event akin to a rub of the green.

I agree that it's problematic in that instance. I wonder how they'll change the rule (if they do).

And let's be honest - the amount of times this happens is pretty small.

[NEOHMark]

This one should definitely be changed.  Great care is taken in all sorts of other rules to ensure the player is not penalized due to things beyond his control.  Embedded balls in the fairway may be lifted, cleaned, and placed.  Relief, without penalty, is given for many man-made artifacts like cart paths, walls, ground under repair, etc. and even some non man-made artifacts like casual water and movable obstructions.  The intent of the rules is clear - the player should not be penalized for things beyond his control.  The folly of this rule is that it ASSUMES that - because he grounded his club - any/all subsequent actions are a direct cause of his grounding of the club.....and it's simply not true in the case of wind.

Y'know, Kenny Perry was cleared of 'improving his lie' a couple years ago when he was CLEARLY tamping the grass behind a very, VERY buried lie in tall rough.  And Webb Simpson gets nailed for something completely out of his control???  That is not, in any way, shape, or form, a consistent enforcement of equitable playing conditions in the rules of golf.

[sean_miller]

I agree with the rule as it is, but wouldn't really care if it was changed. Especially since I don't ground my putter on windy days or when the ball is on a slope.

I do disagree with the two suggestions I bolded. If you like where your ball comes to rest, you'd better run up to the ball and quickly ground your club. Didn't get there in time or didn't ground your putter? Too bad - you get a longer putt if it rolls away. Sure the ball could roll closer to the hole, but things never seem to work out that way.

Quote:

Current rule: You ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Ball is replaced, one shot penalty.

New rule: You ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Ball is replaced, no penalty.

Current rule: You don't ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Play the ball as it lies.

New rule: You don't ground the club, ball is moved by wind. Play the ball as it lies.

Current rule: You bump the ball and it changes position. Ball is replaced, one shot penalty.

New rule: You bump the ball and it changes position. Ball is replaced, one shot penalty.

I don't see how changing this rule can create new situations that are difficult to decide. The only thing that change is you don't get penalized when the wind moves your ball. Everything is done exactly the same regarding when you replace the ball or not.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I do disagree with the two suggestions I bolded. If you like where your ball comes to rest, you'd better run up to the ball and quickly ground your club. Didn't get there in time or didn't ground your putter? Too bad - you get a longer putt if it rolls away. Sure the ball could roll closer to the hole, but things never seem to work out that way.

Or you could just do what everyone is doing today and mark the ball. That doesn't change how we play today. If the wind move the ball before you can mark it, you have to play it as it lies.

I've frequently seen players on TV jog up to the green to mark their ball in case it starts rolling.

[Tagels03]

Webb Simpson lost at the Zurich Classic due to the wind moving his ball as he lined up his putt. he subsequently was in a play-off with Bubba Watson, which he lost. Now, the USGA, are seriously considering changing the rule....this after they have already changed a rule which involved Padraig Harrington being disqualified after a TV viewer phoned in. Are these rule changes good? Should the game not be kept as pure as possible as it was initially intended to 300 years ago?

[Zeph]

Did all these rules exist 300 years ago? I doubt so.

It is a good thing that they constantly challenge the current rules to make the game as fair as possible. Like when they removed the stymied rule in 1952. It was a rule that punished you for something you could not control, like this wind rule does.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Did all these rules exist 300 years ago? I doubt so.

It is a good thing that they constantly challenge the current rules to make the game as fair as possible. Like when they removed the stymied rule in 1952. It was a rule that punished you for something you could not control, like this wind rule does.

That's a poor example: why should you be able to control what your opponent does? Do the rules also prevent your opponent from making a great shot?

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's a poor example: why should you be able to control what your opponent does?

In a way you can, 1 shot ahead, last hole par 5, you go for the green in 2 and make it, which if he wants any chance of winning, would force him to do the same.

Sure, it's not as blunt, but you control the situation, including the other player at that point.

[NEOHMark]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's a poor example: why should you be able to control what your opponent does? Do the rules also prevent your opponent from making a great shot?

Agreed - I think (though I'm not 100% certain as to how you meant this).  When you think about it, the stymie rule used to allow you to control what your opponent could - or couldn't do - by allowing a defensive play to be made on the green.  Billiard players do it all the time.  Sometimes a great billiard shot is one that is not really an attempt to hole the ball at all (if extraordinarily difficult) , but rather to stymie the opponent from that pocket (which could easily be the simpler play).  The same could've been done on the putting surface - plan your attempt so that, if you don't make the shot, you at least prevent your opponent a clear path to the hole.  Though '52 was before my time, I can envision it as the ultimate in gamesmanship.  If you're a stroke behind on the hole but are away, you could theoretically stymie your opponent into forcing at least a two-putt, and who knows then what can happen?  Perhaps he leaves himself too much of a bender from the side and ends up three-putting while you tap in your stymie-ball and halve the hole?  If it were still allowed, it'd be a completely different game on/around the greens.