Rule 18-2b To Be Modified

[The Recreational Golfer]

Rule 18-2b, which speaks to a ball moving after a player has addressed the ball will no longer refer to a player taking a stance. A player will have addressed the ball only if the club is placed on the ground in front of or behind the ball.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/sports/golf/puzzling-golf-rule-on-moving-ball-is-altered.html?ref=golf

The change will be effective January 1.

[zeg]

Odd.  I saw the discussion of modifying that rule earlier, but if those reports are correct, that's not quite the direction I expected the modification to take.

[Ignorant]

Very strange, indeed and is very much contrary to those ideas previously presented by R&A; / USGA.

Quote from the link:

“The ball will be addressed when the player places the club in front of or behind the ball. It won’t have anything to do with the stance; it won’t say anything about a stance. They’re taking the stance part out.”

How will addressing a ball in a hazard be described in the future then?

I doubt that this will be the only change.

[jamo]

This doesn't really change the wind thing, does it? You're still going to have to hover the putter it seems like. I could be wrong though...

[ghalfaire]

Sounds as if it is just being changed to fit the way it has been interpreted all along.  Wasn't addressing the ball considered when you grounded the club?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Sounds as if it is just being changed to fit the way it has been interpreted all along.  Wasn't addressing the ball considered when you grounded the club?

Yes, but it also stated an exception for when the ball lies in a hazard.  Then the ball was addressed when the stance was taken.  This was sort of a grey area, since when is a stance taken?  Some guys never seem to stop fidgeting and shuffling their feet before they swing, so at what point did he actually take his stance?  Now that won't matter... it is when the club is grounded - a clear point in time which is easy to identify.

And apparently, you will no longer actually "address" the ball when in a hazard.  I'm not sure what this will do to making a call on whether the ball is moved by the player or by fate.  I think that in such a case the new rule will just add to the confusion.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Sounds as if it is just being changed to fit the way it has been interpreted all along.  Wasn't addressing the ball considered when you grounded the club?

Kind of. You had to do both. Some people could ground their club but not have fully taken their stance, and that wouldn't constitute addressing the ball. For example, that's part of my pre-shot routine - I walk in but don't take my stance, line the club up, then align my feet.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And apparently, you will no longer actually "address" the ball when in a hazard.  I'm not sure what this will do to making a call on whether the ball is moved by the player or by fate.  I think that in such a case the new rule will just add to the confusion.

FourPutt, perhaps they're simply changing the idea that a player will be deemed to have caused the ball to move (except, as is true currently, when they actually touch it or something to make it move).

[dbuck]

There are a few players, most notable being Jack, who seldom or never ground the club. So I guess those players will never again address the ball.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by iacas

FourPutt, perhaps they're simply changing the idea that a player will be deemed to have caused the ball to move (except, as is true currently, when they actually touch it or something to make it move).

Yeah, except that it now becomes something of a judgment call.  Did he actually do something which could have caused the ball to move?  Is doubt resolved against the player?  Is kvc going to implemented in the application of the new rule?  Still room for a lot of questions until we see the actual wording for the rule change.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yeah, except that it now becomes something of a judgment call.  Did he actually do something which could have caused the ball to move?  Is doubt resolved against the player?  Is kvc going to implemented in the application of the new rule?  Still room for a lot of questions until we see the actual wording for the rule change.

Yep. I'm adopting a "wait and see" approach. ;-)

I like simplifying things. Though, as you know, things can only be simplified to a point. Right now we still have judgment calls about "grounding" the club - was it enough to support the weight of the club or was it just in the tops of the long grass, for example?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yep. I'm adopting a "wait and see" approach. ;-)

I like simplifying things. Though, as you know, things can only be simplified to a point. Right now we still have judgment calls about "grounding" the club - was it enough to support the weight of the club or was it just in the tops of the long grass, for example?

Granted, but in a situation where the ball lies in rough, simply touching the long grass near the ball can usually be considered as causing the ball to move, whether or not the club was grounded.  In such a situation any doubt would almost invariably be resolved against the player.

I called a penalty against myself once when I took a nice practice chipping swing a full foot away from a ball lying on a slope in the fairway a few yards off the green.  It appeared that the thump of the practice swing sent enough of a vibration through the ground to cause the ball to roll back about an inch.  I just treated it as another learning experience.

[B-Con]

Which of the recent ruling issues would this address? I thought the rule change was motivated by situations [url=http://www.barryrhodes.com/2011/05/bad-rule-18-2b-to-be-revised.html]like Simpson's[/url]. Did anyone get in trouble for something that happened after they took their stance? I thought the kerfuffle was mostly about grounding putter heads.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by B-Con

Which of the recent ruling issues would this address? I thought the rule change was motivated by situations like Simpson's. Did anyone get in trouble for something that happened after they took their stance? I thought the kerfuffle was mostly about grounding putter heads.

Luiten did (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/jun/02/luitens-us-debut-ends-dq/).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Luiten did (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/jun/02/luitens-us-debut-ends-dq/).

Yeah, that's largely why this is in the news now.

He didn't share the facts of the story properly, so the official initially ruled one way. When they discovered his ball was in the hazard, they had to reverse the ruling.

Yet another case of "players should know the rules for themselves...". Even if they ask for an official it'd stop them from leaving out relevant facts.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yeah, that's largely why this is in the news now.

He didn't share the facts of the story properly, so the official initially ruled one way. When they discovered his ball was in the hazard, they had to reverse the ruling.

Yet another case of "players should know the rules for themselves...". Even if they ask for an official it'd stop them from leaving out relevant facts.

This case is actually rather interesting. Luiten told the Rules Official he had taken his stance and the ball had moved. Did the RO ask Luiten the crucial question of utmost relevance: was your ball through the green or in the hazard? In fact he did not thus giving Luiten an incorrect ruling.

So, is it Luiten's screw-up or the RO's? The RO gave an incorrect ruling because he did not know all relevant facts, in fact, he did not even ask for those! Now the question is, was it ok to DQ Luiten or would it have been correct to add 2 penalty strokes to his score and waive the DQ (Rule 34-3 and Decisions)?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yep. I'm adopting a "wait and see" approach. ;-)

I like simplifying things. Though, as you know, things can only be simplified to a point. Right now we still have judgment calls about "grounding" the club - was it enough to support the weight of the club or was it just in the tops of the long grass, for example?

I've seen some more banter about this change proposal.  Apparently it isn't quite the done deal as has been suggested.  Rumor has it that it has not yet been agreed to by the R&A; in particular, and that is a requirement before it can become effective.  The RO who leaked the information seems to have jumped the gun on what are simply ongoing discussions which always happen when there is a controversial or unpopular ruling.