Ryan Moore and the New Rule 18-2b

[iacas]

Ryan Moore soled his putter behind his golf ball at Quail Hollow and the ball moved.

He was assessed a one-stroke penalty that he didn't believe, at the time, that he earned because of the "changes" to rule 18-2b. Unfortunately, he was wrong.

First, understand that the definition of "addressing" the ball recently changed.

Addressing the ball is now defined as:

Addressing the Ball

A player has “addressed the ball” when he has grounded his club immediately in front of or immediately behind the ball, whether or not he has taken his stance.

In the past, you had to have taken your stance and grounded your club. Now you simply need to have grounded your club.

Rule 18-2b says:

Quote:

b. Ball Moving After Address

If a player’s ball in playmoves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke.

The ball must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.

The trouble for Moore came in the form of the bold portion. The answer comes in the form of Decision 18-2b/11.

Quote:

18-2b/11

Ball Moved by Another Agency After Address

Q.After a player has addressed his ball in play, some other agency (e.g., a ball played by another player) moves the player's ball. Is the player subject to penalty under Rule 18-2b?

A.No. As it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply - see Exception under Rule 18-2b. In such a case where an agency directly causes a ball to move, the Rule applicable to that agency (e.g., Rule 18-1, 18-2a, 18-3, 18-4 or 18-5) applies.

The same principle applies if it is known or virtually certain that a ball in play has been moved by wind, water or some other element after the player has addressed it; there is no penalty and the ball must be played from its new location. Gravity is not in itself an element that should be considered when applying the Exception to Rule 18-2b; therefore, unless it is known or virtually certain that some agency other than gravity (e.g., outside agency or wind) caused the ball to move after address, the player is subject to a one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2b and must replace the ball. (Revised)

The decision clearly spells out that an outside agency OR wind are the only things which allow the player to escape penalty, and only in the case of wind if it's virtually certain the ball blew to a new position, not that gravity affected it.

Still, I will say this: the bold "Exception" part is incredibly poorly worded, and one can see how Ryan Moore might have read the Rules (but not the Decisions) and come to understand the Rule as he seems to have understood it.

[Mr. Desmond]

They need to re-write the rules into something resembling English.

After reading the Rules, the Internal Revenue Code is sometimes easier to understand than the Rules of Golf.

That's absurd.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

They need to re-write the rules into something resembling English.

After reading the Rules, the Internal Revenue Code is sometimes easier to understand than the Rules of Golf.

That's absurd.

I disagree. I think that, in general, the Rules are fine, and every attempt at simplifying them that I've ever seen only further complicates things or changes the rules.

I think that this wording would be perfectly fine:

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that an outside agency or wind caused his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply. See Decision 18-2b/11.

Also, "wind" was specifically the reason this rule was tweaked, given the recent British Opens. Gravity is never an "outside agency."

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

They need to re-write the rules into something resembling English.

After reading the Rules, the Internal Revenue Code is sometimes easier to understand than the Rules of Golf.

That's absurd.

I was once told that lawyers actually write/edit the verbage......don't know if that's true or not.

The change is somewhat confusing.  As Eric says, it gets you off the hook for wind and outside agencies only.  Whether this happened or not has to be a question of fact .  Not a maybe. This change is going to help people on windy days.  Where there is going to be confusion is gravity.  If your ball moves, after you address, because of gravity, ( ball on a slope) you still are going to get a penalty on 18-2.

Having said all that, I do think it's a positive change.

Edit:  Saw Eric's response.  The confusing part, is going to be because no one reads the rules.  The word will get out that the rule changed.  However it's going to be along the lines of, "you know that unfair rule about if the ball moves after address, you get a penalty even if you didn't cause it to move, now you're off the hook if you didn't cause it to move."

[zeg]

I think Erik's change would be a big improvement, but I think the rule is fair as it is currently meant to be understood. Basically, there better be clear evidence that something else (wind or an outside agency) caused the movement, or you're on the hook. I don't see any other way to make the rule consistent with the principles of playing the ball as it lies. I've seen plenty of times (thankfully mostly on the practice green) when a ball in a precarious lie on a slope starts moving when a club is set lightly beside it. While that's frustrating, there's no way to see it but that the club caused the movement. Maybe, just maybe, the ball was going to roll anyway, but I think the vast majority of rulings will be made correctly by assuming that the address caused the ball to move unless there's evidence of another cause.

There are still quirks, though. Sometimes walking a couple feet away from the ball on a soft green can make it roll. On the one hand, in principle you should be penalized for causing this. However, you also have a right to take your stance, so being too harsh here would be counterproductive. Address seems like a decent line to draw in the sand as to where the onus of proof transfers.

[VMAN]

I agree.  The rule leaves a lot to interpretation, but then again many rules of golf do and that's ok.  It is a great part of the game that the character of the player is so important.

But, I think that the rules need to really take into account the speed of the greens these guys are putting on.  I've only played on greens that fast a few times when it is windy.  One time, not too breezy, on a very fast green I placed my putter behind the ball and the ball started rolling forward.  The wind coming from behind and over the putter had essentially pulled the ball forward, bernoulli and all.  Interesting thing is we were able to replicate the situation and it wasn't an extreme weather condition.  Extreme green condition, yes, extreme weather, no.

Personally, I think that if you're not making a stroke you should be penalized.  Much like the ball falling off the tee on the tee box (which happened twice to me yesterday).

[boogielicious]

Agreed. I would add a note to remind the reader that gravity is not an outside agency. It is stated elsewhere, but a simple reminder would certainly clear it up. I have written a lot of procedures, instructions, manuals, etc and you sometimes have to repeat elements as a reminder many times.

[Dormie1360]

Another problem from the standpoint of understanding a lot of the rules is the term "outside agency"  Next time you play, ask your group what "outside agency" means.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree. I think that, in general, the Rules are fine, and every attempt at simplifying them that I've ever seen only further complicates things or changes the rules.

I think that this wording would be perfectly fine:

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that an outside agency or wind caused his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply. See Decision 18-2b/11.

Also, "wind" was specifically the reason this rule was tweaked, given the recent British Opens. Gravity is never an "outside agency."

I'm sure you've seen attempts at simplifying the rules, that don't work.

I have a masters degree in law in taxation, and after reading the rules of golf, I continue to think "there must be a better way."

I try to look back at the documents we draft for a client and put it away for a day or two. Then I pull it out and pretend I'm the typical client and ask, "Can I understand this easily without constantly going back and forth?

I kept on going back and forth with the initial post.

[jamo]

I'm sure you've seen attempts at simplifying the rules, that don't work. I have a masters degree in law in taxation, and after reading the rules of golf, I continue to think "there must be a better way." I try to look back at the documents we draft for a client and put it away for a day or two. Then I pull it out and pretend I'm the typical client and ask, "Can I understand this easily without constantly going back and forth? I kept on going back and forth with the initial post.

OT, but we have a Wiki article if anyone wants to try to write a condensed version of the rules: http://thesandtrap.com/a/rules-of-golf-in-one-page-maybe-two

[sflemon]

So, if it moves when you address your putt.......but you don't ground the putter at all.  Let's say you know it's on a big hill, and don't ground the putter.  Ball moves without wind or an outside agency.....then what?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Another problem from the standpoint of understanding a lot of the rules is the term "outside agency"  Next time you play, ask your group what "outside agency" means.

I get what you're saying, and know you know the Rules, but I don't really have a problem with defining terms and then using them, and the Rules (as you know) do just that with "outside agency." So I don't think they have to include the definition for things every time they use those things.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by jamo

OT, but we have a Wiki article if anyone wants to try to write a condensed version of the rules: http://thesandtrap.com/a/rules-of-golf-in-one-page-maybe-two

I wouldn't mind trying it as a long term project - but I'd have to have someone who knew the rules to review drafts.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sflemon

So, if it moves when you address your putt.......but you don't ground the putter at all.  Let's say you know it's on a big hill, and don't ground the putter.  Ball moves without wind or an outside agency.....then what?

Then you're fine. So don't ground your putter if you think the ball might move. Jack didn't ground his clubs in the rough if he thought the ball might move.

[Beachcomber]

Thanks for sharing.  I found it interesting about grounding the club definition - and taking address.  That is good to know that if the ball moves from placing the club in-front or behind the ball - regardless of taking the stance, if it moves - it is a penalty.  I thought it was only a penalty if you actually was fully set with your feet - and club.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Thanks for sharing.  I found it interesting about grounding the club definition - and taking address.  That is good to know that if the ball moves from placing the club in-front or behind the ball - regardless of taking the stance, if it moves - it is a penalty.  I thought it was only a penalty if you actually was fully set with your feet - and club.

The definition of Addressing the Ball changed this year and no longer requires a stance to have been taken.

It is simply a matter of grounding the ball immediately behind or in front to the ball.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by sflemon

So, if it moves when you address your putt.......but you don't ground the putter at all.  Let's say you know it's on a big hill, and don't ground the putter.  Ball moves without wind or an outside agency.....then what?

According to the rules, the player never addressed his putt in the example you describe above.

Brandon

[zeg]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

According to the rules, the player never addressed his putt in the example you describe above.

Which means that, rather than being deemed to have caused it, you must determine whether or not you caused it. If you stomp next to the ball and it starts rolling, addressed or not, that is a penalty. It'll depend on the situation, but IMO if you're reasonably (and gently!) taking your stance, I think you'd be justified to treat it like a rub of the green.